<p>no you weren’t shut up and go make me a sandwich, billymc, mmmk?</p>
<p>Ah, yet another ■■■■■. How wonderful. Doesn’t even have an inventive name, though, so there is nothing to laugh at for this one.</p>
<p>how am i a ■■■■■…have you even looked at my posts? everything i said here was not me being a ■■■■■…</p>
<p>and you never even stated what drugs you were talking about…at all. thats why i told you to shut up because you didn’t. god you are so full of bull*****. i wonder if you are even going to get a girlfriend or married when you grow up. no girl would want to to deal with you freals…</p>
<p>
[Quite</a> trollish.](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12631588-post41.html]Quite”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12631588-post41.html)</p>
<p>
[Hm</a>, I never differentiated between specific drugs and their effects?](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12630859-post13.html]Hm”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12630859-post13.html)</p>
<p>[And</a> the latter half of this post?](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12631505-post32.html]And”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12631505-post32.html)</p>
<p>sar·casm
[sahr-kaz-uhm]
–noun</p>
<ol>
<li><p>harsh or bitter derision or irony.</p></li>
<li><p>a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: *a review full of sarcasms. *</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
Riiiiight.</p>
<p>lol well i said what drugs i was talking about too DERP <_____<</p>
<p>
I never claimed that you did not; however, you apparently did not read my posts on this thread before slinging falsehoods.</p>
<p>i never said that you never claimed that i didn’t
what i mean is that i already referred to what type of drugs i was arguing against, yet you missed that point, too, and argued against what i was trying to say. well, it looksl ike we agree on the same point then lol. every drug besides weed is horrible.</p>
<p>I didn’t argue against what you said. I made an intentionally idiotic statement about people controlling themselves during drug use and even put “****” at the end of it; it was sarcasm, making fun of those who were arguing that point.</p>
<p>
Many opiates can be used for medical purposes. I’d say recreational drugs in general (including weed and tobacco) are generally a bad idea, but agree that cocaine/heroin/etc are the worst.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Firstly, don’t tell me not to argue a point, if you believe you’re right you should have no trouble defending your view. Don’t make assumptions about me especially idiotic ones. I know the effects of drugs and what they can do to people. Now, in a system based on property rights drugs such as crack usage wouldn’t be high. If people do damage property they would be expected to compensate the owner. Remember under such a system feens won’t be receiving any help from the state (because the state won’t exist) thus they won’t have any way of feeding their habits. For those who have families who are supplying them with money to feed their addiction, they would have to reconsider because for every property damaged by the druggie the family will compensate. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Billy, lets establish that such things are necessary for survival (don’t know why you listed airplane, driving ships and all that **** like they’re necessary but whatever), how does that justify killing animals for meat? We can avoid that. Why don’t we? Why do you believe we shouldn’t? We’ve just established that certain animals must be killed in order to survive but you haven’t established why others must be also killed.</p>
<p>
By not killing animals for meat, we will need to eat more plants, which involves killing more animals.</p>
<p>However, you are right in that the morality is questionable; it is something that I often think of. But I see no reason why the killing of an animal for constructive purposes (food) should be equated to raping a cat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, because without the state existing families will definitely compensate other families every time there is property damaged.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because you’re both doing it for the same reason, desire. Who gives a **** about a cats life, if our own lives are meaningless… </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Somebody needs to read about anarcho-capitalism. [URL=<a href=“http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf]Here[/URL”>http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf]Here[/URL</a>] read some Rothbard, go to page 219. Or [url=<a href=“http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html]Friedman[/URL”>Chapter 29: POLICE, COURTS, AND LAWS---ON THE MARKET]Friedman[/URL</a>].</p>
<p>[Cruelty</a> to animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Cruelty to animals - Wikipedia”>Cruelty to animals - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Also, anarcho-capitalism is bull****. Though it seems to work well for someone with no empathy (and a lot of money/guns).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I realize that Billy but that’s not really the same thing as bestiality. Also, you familiar with the prhase 'cum hoc ergo propter hoc '? And you would say that wouldn’t you, you no-good commie!</p>
<p>
Not caring about the pain of animals and directly causing them pain for your pleasure.</p>
<p>
Psychologists have studied this beyond the level of mere correlation. Torturing/raping an animal is just a step away from torturing/raping a human.</p>
<p>
- “If you strike at, imprison, or kill us, out of our prisons or graves we will still evoke a spirit that will thwart you, and perhaps, raise a force that will destroy you! We defy you! Do your worst!”*</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is it that every single libertarian Internet poster feels compelled to post links rather than make their own arguments? Based on the links I’d guess it’s because the arguments rely on the construction of Tolkienesque fictional worlds, but it also is conveniently difficult to argue against since nobody’s going to go line by line through Friedman the Younger’s article pointing out the unsupported assumptions he makes.</p>
<p>Xenophanes is so stupid…his posts aint even laughable anymore, just cryable</p>
<p>This thread got stupid fast. Let’s get back on topic.</p>
<p>ALL drugs should be legal. Yes, I mean heroin, meth, crack, etc. Either I own my body or the police do. And besides, having them illegal does nothing. People willing to do meth don’t care about its legal status, and normal people wouldn’t do meth even if it was legal. I just don’t see why someone needs to be arrested for consuming meth if they aren’t hurting anyone.</p>
<p>Wow, how do we manage to turn everything into bestiality? Well, that and communist revolution.</p>
<p>
But taking meth does harm others, and it harms society. Taking meth directly leads to committing other crimes, often while under the influence.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.mfiles.org/publications/Methandrelatedcrime.pdf[/url]”>http://www.mfiles.org/publications/Methandrelatedcrime.pdf</a></p>
<p>[Illinois</a> Attorney General - Meth and Crime](<a href=“http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/methnet/understandingmeth/crime.html]Illinois”>http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/methnet/understandingmeth/crime.html)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.kentucky.com/2011/02/19/1640695/state-police-report-meth-abuse.html[/url]”>http://www.kentucky.com/2011/02/19/1640695/state-police-report-meth-abuse.html</a></p>
<p>It isn’t about the police owning your body, it’s about society ensuring that the good of all is considered.</p>
<p>
[citation needed]</p>