Conquer Club

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/09/colombia-suspends-four-police-officers-deaths-coca-farmers

So Bogota wants to play nice but "what the people want" is to kill Americans. How should we as Americans feel about this? Should we respect the wishes of the people?

This is actually the definite proof of the problem with value systems. One value system "law" states that cocaine is bad, another "economy" states that cocaine is good. Science has no ability to give value. It can tell you that in some cases cocaine causes psychosis, and how often that happens etc. but it can never answer the question: what percentage of psychosis is required for something to be a "bad" chemical or even whether psychosis is bad.

There is no way to evaluate anything without either randomization or divine revelation, or some combination thereof.

Cocaine doesn’t kill people. It’s up there with weed and alcohol as one of the weak drugs even wussies can do.

mrswdk wrote:Cocaine doesn’t kill people. It’s up there with weed and alcohol as one of the weak drugs even wussies can do.

maybe the crappy, 7x stepped on shit you get from your bartender...

Cocaine and all narcotics for that matter, alcohol as well, actually can do a lot more than merely triggering psychosis. They are named as some of the environmental factors that can enable the onset of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and schizo-affective disorder.

mrswdk wrote:Cocaine doesn’t kill people. It’s up there with weed and alcohol as one of the weak drugs even wussies can do.

Pussies too. It has a neat numbing sensation.

DoomYoshi wrote:This is actually the definite proof of the problem with value systems. One value system "law" states that cocaine is bad, another "economy" states that cocaine is good. Science has no ability to give value. It can tell you that in some cases cocaine causes psychosis, and how often that happens etc. but it can never answer the question: what percentage of psychosis is required for something to be a "bad" chemical or even whether psychosis is bad.

There is no way to evaluate anything without either randomization or divine revelation, or some combination thereof.

How much "psychosis" needs to occur before it is deemed "bad"?

In my opinion it should be a fairly low number.

I also figure the premature aging and heart desease is negative but, I am probably one of those "wussies." Even more now that I'm old.

Maybe that puts me in the catigory of being a square, sipping green tea with Nancy Reagan, instead of being cool enough to rail lines with Thorthoth.

I guess I can live with that.

2dimes wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:This is actually the definite proof of the problem with value systems. One value system "law" states that cocaine is bad, another "economy" states that cocaine is good. Science has no ability to give value. It can tell you that in some cases cocaine causes psychosis, and how often that happens etc. but it can never answer the question: what percentage of psychosis is required for something to be a "bad" chemical or even whether psychosis is bad.

There is no way to evaluate anything without either randomization or divine revelation, or some combination thereof.

How much "psychosis" needs to occur before it is deemed "bad"?

In my opinion it should be a fairly low number.

I also figure the premature aging and heart desease is negative but, I am probably one of those "wussies." Even more now that I'm old.

Maybe that puts me in the catigory of being a square, sipping green tea with Nancy Reagan, instead of being cool enough to rail lines with Thorthoth.

I guess I can live with that.

Let's say the correct answer (for you) is 5%. Anymore than 5% and you're not willing to take that risk. What if the odds are 5.2%? Is it really all that different than 4.8%? There's an entire field of statistics devoted to studying questions of risk and in the end - it all comes down to personal preference.

Well, even though I am presenting as "strongly opposed" I guess in the practical sense of making laws and enforcing them. I wish to be publicly known as cracking down while trying to help the poor buggers suffering negative effects, such as addiction, with better programs to assist.

For me the correct answer is probably a fair bit lower than 1%. Probably more like one in one thousand. That seems too high. Now when waauw gets back and tells me about the higher risk booze presents compared to nose candy, I will just have to be a hypocrite and carry on.

My hard stand against drugs is much like fire arms. I can handle the responsibilities required, I also feel some others should be allowed to use in moderation.

Problems arise when some, can not.

In the case of drugs, most of the problems come from two things. Someone already had a problem, depression for example, which gets amplified by a substance. Or someone introduces a toxin either to cause a "better high" or to attempt murder.

When one bad guy kills another bad guy we all win. Unfourtunately "bad guy" can be a grey area where someone that lacks a good support system gets involved with the bad guys messes up and gets killed.

2dimes wrote:Well, even though I am presenting as "strongly opposed" I guess in the practical sense of making laws and enforcing them. I wish to be publicly known as cracking down while trying to help the poor buggers suffering negative effects, such as addiction, with better programs to assist.

For me the correct answer is probably a fair bit lower than 1%. Probably more like one in one thousand. That seems too high. Now when waauw gets back and tells me about the higher risk booze presents compared to nose candy, I will just have to be a hypocrite and carry on.

My hard stand against drugs is much like fire arms. I can handle the responsibilities required, I also feel some others should be allowed to use in moderation.

Problems arise when some, can not.

In the case of drugs, most of the problems come from two things. Someone already had a problem, depression for example, which gets amplified by a substance. Or someone introduces a toxin either to cause a "better high" or to attempt murder.

When one bad guy kills another bad guy we all win. Unfourtunately "bad guy" can be a grey area where someone that lacks a good support system gets involved with the bad guys messes up and gets killed.

Eating greasy cheeseburgers and slurping down big gulps probably kills more people each year than drugs. When will they be outlawed?

-TG

waauw wrote:Cocaine and all narcotics for that matter, alcohol as well, actually can do a lot more than merely triggering psychosis. They are named as some of the environmental factors that can enable the onset of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and schizo-affective disorder.

Beer is beneficial and helped humans create agriculture and civilization.

Beer is also packed with ingredients and minerals for good health.

You two make reasonable points and we really need to speak up when Burnie does that.
Well done my friend.

Part of the problem with nose powdering, is a guy like me doing it to stay up later, eating hamburgers and drinking super big gulps after drinking a bunch of beers.

you'd lose your appetite, 2dimes - maybe not for beer, but def. for the cheeseburgers.

Cocaine stops your appetite.

Most coke heads are thin and sickly.

Yes, if more Americans did come they would be sexy and slim not fat and cheesy.

DoomYoshi wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/09/colombia-suspends-four-police-officers-deaths-coca-farmers

So Bogota wants to play nice but "what the people want" is to kill Americans. How should we as Americans feel about this? Should we respect the wishes of the people?

This is actually the definite proof of the problem with value systems. One value system "law" states that cocaine is bad, another "economy" states that cocaine is good. Science has no ability to give value. It can tell you that in some cases cocaine causes psychosis, and how often that happens etc. but it can never answer the question: what percentage of psychosis is required for something to be a "bad" chemical or even whether psychosis is bad.

There is no way to evaluate anything without either randomization or divine revelation, or some combination thereof.

Why don't you consider Colombians to be Americans? You might need to challenge some of your most basic assumptions here.

Symmetry wrote:Why don't you consider Colombians to be Americans? You might need to challenge some of your most basic assumptions here.

No Sym, NO. we're just not going into that two continents full of ''Americans'' wormhole. It's stupid and already done to death. Besides, as an 'Old Worlder' it's really none of your business.

Jeez- why? It's not as if the Americas aren't as old as the rest of the continents.

In Spanish americano refers to anyone from the Americas. Estadounidense is used for a u.s. citizen. Sorry, sloth, but south and central Americans are technically Americans.

If you want we can claim muricans.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:In Spanish americano refers to anyone from the Americas. Estadounidense is used for a u.s. citizen. Sorry, sloth, but south and central Americans are technically Americans.

If you want we can claim muricans.

-TG

No. We were the first to declare independence from Europe. The name is ours.besides, those other countries have already have other names for their stupid citizenry.

a) nowhere did I say Colombians weren't Americans
b) whether or not they are has no bearing on any points made in the OP
c) they are also protesting the right to kill other Colombians and Germans and Martians etc.
d) therefore sym is just trolling

You know there's two continents with America in the name, right?

It's kinda like calling anyone from Asia an Asian, when it could be an Indian, Laotian, ladyboi mrs, or Japanese.

-TG

DoomYoshi wrote:a) nowhere did I say Colombians weren't Americans
b) whether or not they are has no bearing on any points made in the OP
c) they are also protesting the right to kill other Colombians and Germans and Martians etc.
d) therefore sym is just trolling

Thanks for the multiple choice, D-Yosh, but of course, the answer is ALWAYS: d).

Well, here is my authoritative list on who is allowed to be called American. You will note that Colombians aren't on it. Curiously, both the English and Portuguese are.

DoomYoshi wrote:a) nowhere did I say Colombians weren't Americans
b) whether or not they are has no bearing on any points made in the OP
c) they are also protesting the right to kill other Colombians and Germans and Martians etc.
d) therefore sym is just trolling

I felt the title implied that Colombian lives weren't American. I'm glad that you've clarified that it wasn't your intent to do so. Weirdly, some people, including yourself felt that I was wrong to point out a flaw that you are now tacitly acknowledging to be true.

It seemed a little but like trolling- your thread title. I'm glad that you've acknowledged that and are walking it back.

Symmetry wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:a) nowhere did I say Colombians weren't Americans
b) whether or not they are has no bearing on any points made in the OP
c) they are also protesting the right to kill other Colombians and Germans and Martians etc.
d) therefore sym is just trolling

I felt the title implied that Colombian lives weren't American. I'm glad that you've clarified that it wasn't your intent to do so. Weirdly, some people, including yourself felt that I was wrong to point out a flaw that you are now tacitly acknowledging to be true.

It seemed a little but like trolling- your thread title. I'm glad that you've acknowledged that and are walking it back.

The only trolling here is you.