makeithappen40

Fair enough. I'm just showing you how skydiving affects others in the way that you said wasn't ok for meth. "Now, I don't have a problem with people doing drugs.... As long as they don't affect anyone else. The problem is in many cases it does." Skydiving too. You don't have a problem with skydiving, even if it affects someone else. Why do you think differently about meth?

>If some methhead wants to rot his teeth, then I should not have to pay for his dental work. And if some swooper breaks both of his legs, I don't want to have to pay for that, either. >Now, I don't have a problem with people doing drugs.... As long as they don't affect anyone else. The problem is in many cases it does. Do you have a problem with skydiving then? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrRsTLC4Gkw&feature=fvw Edit: On a side issue, he survived the landing. Looks like self interest works!

Ok. Now all we need to do is show how mj is going to be cheaper as a result of its legalization. This means answering questions about taxes, who will sell the drug, who will be able to purchase the drug, and so on will be of increasing importance. Also, for future reference, is this issue about legalization for purely medical reasons, or legalization for everyone above a certain age? (Like cigarettes) If it is about legalization for purely medical reasons, we will still need to answer as to how theft won't hurt people there. (I think it will, just like grandma gets hurt whenever someone steals her pain medication.)

Neat. That only indicates one problem leads to more severe methods of obtaining it than some other type of drug. It does not indicate that there is a difference as a result of their legality. How does the difference in how people obtain the funds to purchase drugs vs cigarettes come from legality?

How is it that legalization would stop people from stealing/selling stolen goods to buy it again? I had a motorcycle stolen from me years back. We found out who did it, and why. He used it to buy drugs. They were illegal. Making that drug legal wouldn't change that.

>Another nice thing about legalizing marijuana is that it will be easier to identify the people who fail at life by letting a drug control them Right on. Maybe the same thing will happen to all those successful businessmen who snort cocaine in their homes on Rodeo drive. Fucking failures.

You've succeeded admirably. Well done.

He's saying that foreign wars can be a great way of getting the public to forget real issues. Ever see "Wag the Dog"? Ohhh I see. That is pretty plausible actually. (Well, that is, when there are issues more important than wars to be distracted from.) Never seen it. Netflix-activate!

Uhh. No. Check the entire statement. It has everything to do with caring for our own people. Yet another MnealTX post. Way to go.

>Because changing the subject is easier. Are you implying I changed subject?

Nothin' like some good ol' fashioned impirialism to start off the day. Hell yes, I would be upset.

I have used VA benefits (aka "socialized medicine") SEVERAL times. (Broken arm, broken shoulder, dislocated shoulder, dog bite, resperatory illness, orthopaedic surgery, checkups, etc.) Those would all be cases, with the exception of the checkups, that would be considered things you would want to see a doctor for immediately. (Oh-and I did. My orthopaedic surgery was the day after my accident, only delayed because the facility [which is primarily a private care facility] had a line that required me to wait 16 hours to get into surgery. So much for being a champion of private health care...) And I have only been stuck with Copays AND managed to see a doctor of my own choosing AND went to Prespbyterian hospital (or) to Lovelace for each and every one of those visits mentioned above. I got the service that you would expect at a private health care facility... well... because they are private facilities.

>Shouldn't we have food stations set up in every neighborhood, where people can pick up their government issued 1000 calories per day and a multivitamin (or whatever)? Aren't there charities that take care of this? >Why don't we have free bunkrooms for those without shelter? Thought we did. >Why aren't food and shelter higher priorities for government spending? Mothafuckin soup kitchen 'yo. I know huh. It seems totally inconsistent to spend so many dollars rewarding multibillion dollar multinational corporations for their disastrous business practices and not feed everyone. It also seems inconsistent to spend $600 billion per year on "national defense" when we could care less about the immediate needs our own people have. Why defend people you don't give a shit about? Also, and I'm sure you've already said this, we aren't really facing the issue of health care here are we? We are discussing finding socialized methods of payment for those services.

>If "experience" was preferred, McCain would have won in a landslide. Totally. No one can compare to the 300 years McCain has been involved in politics. Ron Paul comes close at around 250 years. But its not 300. Close.

Sounds alot like irrational authority. It also sounds alot like that irrational authority is forcing the belief as opposed to nurturing the belief. (Sort of like the nurturing the seed statements earlier)

Hell, thats a pretty good start.

Amen. Well, unless you break one of the ten commandments.

Sorry this is what you believe..... But is does not all tie together as cleanly as you post. With some inacuracies as well But..... Ahh fuck it. I'm done.

Poor Christians, only representing 1/3rd of the general population and all. I wonder how many athiests have been beaten and scorned in the past 2000 years.

>It is not my job to convince anyone of anything. I have nothing to gain. Oh. Just thought you were spreading the message of God on an internet forum and at the drop zone. Oops. >That's it. That is the essence exactly. Without faith it is impossible to please God. The Bible says we are all given a seed of faith. We have to nurture it to make it grow. Wait, who is God again? Oh ok. He is god. Did he say that you must please him, and if he did, where did you get the notion that faith is what pleases God? Oh. It was written in the Bible. A document that has been torn to shreds and re-written and handed down through 2000 years of war, crusades, and Kentucky Fried Chicken openings. The document isn't what it used to be. It hurts me as much as it hurts you. >The New Testament book of John Chapter 3, verse 16 See above. The New Testament? Ahh. A revision of the word of God by a man. Crap. >They work for me. I think they will work for others because of my experience in life and I believe the Bible is truth. Yea well so does murdering Jewish people. The German people used to get their jollies by lining Jews up in the streets, tatooing them, forcing them to perform "street scrubbing events" and killing them on the streets. "They work for me" isn't the greatest reason to believe in something either. Actually, it looks like that is a rather bad reason now. >Not unless it works for you. It works for me. Try it and see if it works for you. You don't have to tell me. Just go to your secret place and ask Jesus to come into your heart and into your life. See what happens. What if I asked Muhammed? What if I asked Buddha? What happens then?

Pretty cool story. I'd have to read more about it. Uuuunfortunately, each of those men had another thing in common. They were all men. Men are prone to make error. (You know, the whole no man is perfect argument) Joseph Smith's followers also believe that he was capable of interacting with God's word. Do you believe Joseph Smith and his followers word? What about all the people who carried that message through time? Do you think that it is possible that the messages have been altered throughout time? The same can be said of all Christianity. Unfortunately, there have been experiments conducted validating this point. Messages, after exchanging hands, get changed through time. 2000 years is a reaaaally long time for the message to not have been changed.

Nice. Yea, there are many arguments that are not even probable given their possibility. However, the God argument is still in terms of induction (probability) as opposed to sound deduction (truth by necessity). I.e. we can't say either way.

>These original followers of Christ were convinced that he was the Messiah, the Son of God. None, not one broke ranks. I don't know about you but, to me that is a powerful conviction Wow. That is pretty amazing. People also had 2000 fewer years of history to look back on as well. Is it possible that they could have believed someone who in fact wasn't who he was? Were they any more deceivable than they are today? You have to admit, even today people are still VERY gullible. You know, kind of like how the Obama crowd is still very gullible.

>As I stated above, the evidence exists with the person who had the experience. It is a change of personality, a change in the mental processing, a change the emotional makeup. Paul refers to the renewing of the spirit in the mind of the believer, put off the old and put on the new. See the New Testament book of Ephesians Chapter 4. Ok. That kind of "evidence" doesnt do such a great job of convincing people. Also, where do you get the notion that sensory experience constitutes evidence? Sensory experience is very deniable. Think of all the times that your senses have failed you. Have you ever heard something that wasn't there? Have you ever felt pain when there was no pain to be felt? Have you ever seen something that can't be explained? We have reason to suspect that empirical inputs are false, given that they have deceived us before. (Thank you, Descartes) If a beautiful woman tells you she loves you and gives you a big hug and a kiss and this makes your spirit soar, is that not a real, verifiable experience? Can anyone tell you that your experience was false? For the same reasons above, the empirical world is dubious in itself. Can you tell anyone the experience was true? Remember, religious arguments depend on faith in things that haven't been proven necessarily true. "Facts and evidence" are not the reason that you believe in God. Faith is. (And that is ok in my book, just don't say that you know that god exists... cause you don't.... That is true for the same reason that I don't know that God doesn't exist. We lack evidence) >Knowing Jesus, as opposed to just going to church and believing Jesus' teachings, is a good thing. I totally agree with you. However, we still don't have enough evidence to make it necessarily true that some ethical principles are in fact morally correct and others aren't. Therefore, you don't know that believing Jesus' teachings are good. However, I think they are good, just like you do. >Out of the emotion of love comes the desire to share. God desires that all receive the gift of His love. Totally. However, it would be interesting if you could tell me which pieces of information (that someone else gave you, btw) that makes it necessarily true and undeniable that God in fact says that. Your argument is problematic for the same reasons that an extremist muslim's arguments about God are false. You don't know that God said those things. You have inferred information from other assumptions that, while still allowed, aren't necessarily the case. >Jesus Christ is one of three things: 1. He was crazy. 2. He was a liar. Or, 3. He is who he says he is. >If He was either of the first two, why would any of the first disciples submit to beatings, imprisonment and execution to carry the gospel message to the world? Because people lie to each other all the time. Remember the last time millions of people the world over believed in Naziism? Hitler didn't actually know if the supreme race was white persons or black persons. However, millions of people still followed him and millions died. Therefore, no matter how widespread your support is, widespread support is no reason to follow someone's teachings. >When I look at photos from the Hubble telescope, as one consideration, I have to accept a supreme creator being. It is pretty beautiful. One wonders how such a beautiful and perfect thing could have been created outside the control of a supreme perfect being. One still cannot say that the universe was created by a supreme being. Therefore, you're argument is still invalid. >What evidence do you have to support your belief that God does not exist? I don't. I also don't have sufficient evidence to bind the claim that "God does exist" to truth. Therefore, we have reason to suspect that God doesn't exist. (You don't, however, have to make this change your belief. I, for one, don't. I still believe in God. I just can't say that God really exists while remaining true to human capabilities concerning truth, evidence, and logic)

>I should have said subjective, verifiable evidence. But subjectivity is dependent on your emotions/feelings/beliefs. How is that "verifiable evidence?" Objectivity is characterized by concrete facts, and those concrete facts are what constitute verifiable evidence. As much as I like the words of Christ, it is still hard to be definitive in saying that he is 1)the son of god and 2)that God does exist. Given the information we have now, we cannot deduce the existence of God. However, we can construct some interesting inductive arguments as such. None of which make it necessarily the case that God does or does not exist.