Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year

[Frank Bemelman]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schreef in
bericht news:87vc71pqbf1dutjprdkvmri0bpfieg2dhf@4ax.com...

Draw a graph. X-axis is how much money we spend supressing illegal
drugs. Y-axis is how much harm is done to the users of those drugs.
Are you arguing that the curve is flat, or even slopes upward?

It would be nice to have a graph a bit more recent, but okay:
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/angles_graph.cfm?issue_type=illegal_drugs&id=157&graph=ffdrugsrecent.jpg
Looks rather flat to me. A worthless graph anyway, the only
useful y-axis would be an axis that indicates the amount of
problems it causes, expressed in extra costs to the community.
Anything else would be drawing a comparison graph of apples
and oranges.

I suspect that if certain drugs were freely and cheaply available,
great social harm and lots of personal misery would result.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Look at the last chart on bottom of this page:
http://www.cannabisireland.com/statistics.html

And how does that reason with this:
http://www.cannabisireland.com/holland.html

....you figure it out.

As currently result from cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, television,
hydrogenated shortenings, and possibly pornography.

From Mr. "Are we having fun yet" I would expect a bit more
acceptance of common ingredients of life such as "cigarettes,
alcohol, gambling, television, hydrogenated shortenings, and
possibly pornography".

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 2 May 2005 22:11:32 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schreef in
bericht news:87vc71pqbf1dutjprdkvmri0bpfieg2dhf@4ax.com...

Draw a graph. X-axis is how much money we spend supressing illegal
drugs. Y-axis is how much harm is done to the users of those drugs.
Are you arguing that the curve is flat, or even slopes upward?

It would be nice to have a graph a bit more recent, but okay:
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/angles_graph.cfm?issue_type=illegal_drugs&id=157&graph=ffdrugsrecent.jpg
Looks rather flat to me. A worthless graph anyway, the only
useful y-axis would be an axis that indicates the amount of
problems it causes, expressed in extra costs to the community.
Anything else would be drawing a comparison graph of apples
and oranges.

I suspect that if certain drugs were freely and cheaply available,
great social harm and lots of personal misery would result.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Look at the last chart on bottom of this page:
http://www.cannabisireland.com/statistics.html

And how does that reason with this:
http://www.cannabisireland.com/holland.html

...you figure it out.

Cannabis is fairly low on the harm scale; minor lung damage, learning
problems, car crashes. Here in San Francisco, Mexican heroin is cheap,
and the hospital emergency rooms are impacted by a stream of people
who have shot up their veins so much they've had to move on to
inter-muscular injection, which causes nasty, hard-to treat necrosies.
One hospital visit can cost a hundred thousand dollars or more to
treat, and these people don't have insurance. Two emergency rooms here
have closed because of this. Escasy has done neurological damage to
lots of kids. Steroids are bad news. Speed does kill.

As currently result from cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, television,
hydrogenated shortenings, and possibly pornography.

From Mr. "Are we having fun yet" I would expect a bit more
acceptance of common ingredients of life such as "cigarettes,
alcohol, gambling, television, hydrogenated shortenings, and
possibly pornography".

I have a friend who treats men for sexual disfunction, and he tells us
wild, sick, gruesomely funny stories about how porn wrecks some
peoples' lives. I just fired a guy who was so addicted to porn that he
didn't work, but mostly used up our DSL bandwidth and consumed our
supplies downloading porn and burning CDs.

In a society where work and duty have been increasingly replaced by
amusement-seeking (a natural consequence of productivity increases,
courtesy engineers) some portion of the population will be bored
enough, and have means enough, to be very self-destructive, and often
destructive to others, too. Is that a proper concern of government?

John

who thought you'd killfiled me.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
<km1d711tuq5qsiucih5gu9j71k11nvdu7g@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:42:00 +0200, Lasse Langwadt Christensen
langwadt@ieee.org> wrote:


so designed fat food that taste too good is bad too? If someone wants to
ruin or kill themself there not much you can do about it.


So, are you opposed to mandatory seatbelt and motorcycle helmet use
laws?

In principle, yes; education is the best way. But the interference with

personal freedom in these cases is just about warranted.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schreef in
bericht news:sg2d71dt5f9md3j1cdqocdv216og54c1mk@4ax.com...

On Mon, 2 May 2005 22:11:32 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schreef in
bericht news:87vc71pqbf1dutjprdkvmri0bpfieg2dhf@4ax.com...

Draw a graph. X-axis is how much money we spend supressing illegal
drugs. Y-axis is how much harm is done to the users of those drugs.
Are you arguing that the curve is flat, or even slopes upward?

It would be nice to have a graph a bit more recent, but okay:

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/angles_graph.cfm?issue_type=illegal_drug
s&id=157&graph=ffdrugsrecent.jpg
Looks rather flat to me. A worthless graph anyway, the only
useful y-axis would be an axis that indicates the amount of
problems it causes, expressed in extra costs to the community.
Anything else would be drawing a comparison graph of apples
and oranges.

I suspect that if certain drugs were freely and cheaply available,
great social harm and lots of personal misery would result.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Look at the last chart on bottom of this page:
http://www.cannabisireland.com/statistics.html

And how does that reason with this:
http://www.cannabisireland.com/holland.html

...you figure it out.


Cannabis is fairly low on the harm scale; minor lung damage, learning
problems, car crashes. Here in San Francisco, Mexican heroin is cheap,
and the hospital emergency rooms are impacted by a stream of people
who have shot up their veins so much they've had to move on to
inter-muscular injection, which causes nasty, hard-to treat necrosies.
One hospital visit can cost a hundred thousand dollars or more to
treat, and these people don't have insurance. Two emergency rooms here
have closed because of this. Escasy has done neurological damage to
lots of kids. Steroids are bad news. Speed does kill.


As currently result from cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, television,
hydrogenated shortenings, and possibly pornography.

From Mr. "Are we having fun yet" I would expect a bit more
acceptance of common ingredients of life such as "cigarettes,
alcohol, gambling, television, hydrogenated shortenings, and
possibly pornography".

I have a friend who treats men for sexual disfunction, and he tells us
wild, sick, gruesomely funny stories about how porn wrecks some
peoples' lives. I just fired a guy who was so addicted to porn that he
didn't work, but mostly used up our DSL bandwidth and consumed our
supplies downloading porn and burning CDs.

In a society where work and duty have been increasingly replaced by
amusement-seeking (a natural consequence of productivity increases,
courtesy engineers) some portion of the population will be bored
enough, and have means enough, to be very self-destructive, and often
destructive to others, too. Is that a proper concern of government?

John

who thought you'd killfiled me.

I was seeing you again for a couple of weeks, you probably changed
your reply-to address. I read less than 5% of the postings here,
occasionally reading postings that draw my attention for whatever
reason.

But you missed the argument in the provided links that allowing soft
drug like marihuana etc reduces the usage of the more dangerous
stuff like heroine and what have you. Instead you present a smoke
screen about porn. As if I care that you hire & fire porn addicts.
Hopeless.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Reg Edwards]

Consider tha 9-11 cost the economy north of $1E12, and a nuke costs
in the
range of $1E6. I say we should retaliate with 1E6 nukes.

========================================

Where are the enemies? You have to locate them first. They are fewer
than the elusive so called weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Bob Monsen]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Monsen
rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote (in
wqCdnRSaMIAZ5-vfRVn-pg@comcast.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

I don't really think it's that simple. The politicians aren't
picking the issues; they are doing polling, focus groups, and phone
interviews to determine what folks care about. Thus, the issues
they come up with directly reflect the issues that coalitions of
people care about. They need to find issues they can make people
believe they can affect.


But by doing that, they are reacting, not LEADING. This is ALL WRONG.
The party managements have been taken over by statisticians
(psephologists, already!) geeks and wimps. Think about the most
successful politicians throughout history, good and bad. Did they
have any truck with polling, focus groups and interviews?

Well, our current president likes to make everybody believe that he
doesn't listen to focus groups. He brags about doing the hard thing.
It's crap. It's all a football game for both republicans and democrats.
The fact that elections are so close is good evidence of what I'm
arguing. It's a testament to the skill of the advertising guys who
actually run the campaigns. If candidates were actually saying what they
wanted to do, the other guy would clobber them with their own words.
They eek out constituencies one at a time with careful, controlled
speeches, ads, email blitzes, etc. The focus poll on EVERY issue. Even
the words they use are tested again and again on focus groups. Every
position is calculated to garner an advantage.

---
Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Bob Monsen]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:57:01 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:22:28 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 13:53:04 -0700, Bob Monsen wrote:


Once a state religion is mandated,...

There's already a de facto state religion in the US: Antismokerism.
If you really look at it, it has all of the symptoms of any other
cult.

Tell me, Rich, if you're walking down the street or sitting on the
grass in a park or lying on the beach, and you finish a smoke, what do
you do with the butt?


Stub it out and if there isn't a waste can near, put it in my pocket,
and toss it in the trash later.

Not _all_ smokers are inconsiderate slobs, thank you very much.

A friend of mine spent time as cook on a freighter. He is a bit of an
arrogant MIT jerk, so the crew hated him and harassed him. To get back
at them, he started putting old cigarette butts into their coffee.
According to him, they liked the coffee better...

Have you ever been in an elevator and some woman drenched in that
cologne that smells like vomit steps on?

Ah, cologne is far more offensive to me than cigarette smoke. It's
probably more dangerous as well, due to my asthmatic reaction to those
floral scents.

---
Bob Monsen

 

[keith]

On Sun, 01 May 2005 18:24:57 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 10:49:35 +1000, Clifford Heath <no@spam.please
wrote:


I suppose there might be religious terrorists worried about
their countries becoming comfortable and bourgeois, and hence
becoming less interested in religious fundamentalism, but that's
a different concern.


What they're really afraid of is the power of their women.

I think that's about as near to the heart as one can get! The only
reason they're pissed at us is that their women aren't stupid.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:48:44 +0000, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:04:10 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

Lots of drugs have been developed for medical purposes that later
turned out to have ghastly side effects; so they were made illegal.
You don't approve?

It's probably OK to make it illegal to give poison to another person,
but I think "protecting people from themselves" is over the line.

Ah, so you disagreee with "doctor assisted suicide".

Who will protect us from the protectors?

If you can't protect yourself, blame the left-leaning weenies.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 19:59:13 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote (in
pan.2005.05.02.18.49.27.174202@doubleclick.net&gt about 'Court
authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:04:10 -0700, John Larkin wrote:


Who will protect us from the protectors?

A while back, someone suggested 'the Internet'. Maybe.

Seems to have worked with Dan Blather. Given the ratings tank of the
major news outlets, I'm somewhat encouraged.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 17:35:08 -0700, Bob Monsen wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:57:01 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:22:28 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 13:53:04 -0700, Bob Monsen wrote:


Once a state religion is mandated,...

There's already a de facto state religion in the US: Antismokerism.
If you really look at it, it has all of the symptoms of any other
cult.

Tell me, Rich, if you're walking down the street or sitting on the
grass in a park or lying on the beach, and you finish a smoke, what do
you do with the butt?


Stub it out and if there isn't a waste can near, put it in my pocket,
and toss it in the trash later.

Not _all_ smokers are inconsiderate slobs, thank you very much.


A friend of mine spent time as cook on a freighter. He is a bit of an
arrogant MIT jerk, so the crew hated him and harassed him. To get back
at them, he started putting old cigarette butts into their coffee.
According to him, they liked the coffee better...

Have you ever been in an elevator and some woman drenched in that
cologne that smells like vomit steps on?


Ah, cologne is far more offensive to me than cigarette smoke. It's
probably more dangerous as well, due to my asthmatic reaction to those
floral scents.

Moons ago we had a technican who liked smoking that crappy cherry pipe
tobacco. It stunk like *hell*, so one day we cut rubber bands into slivers
and mixed pencil shavings into his pouch. He lit up, and didn't notice.
When confronted with the truth he gave up smoking. ;-)

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:58:10 +0000, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:58:46 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2005 19:30:00 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

Hasn't anybody yet tried to find a middle ground? Oh- can't do that! You'd
have to admit that your enemy has the same right to life that you have.

Well, obviously, if they're our enemy, then they don't.

"We must remember that in time of war what is said on the enemy's side of
the front is always propaganda and what is said on our side of the front
is truth and righteousness, the cause of humanity and a crusade for
peace."
-- Walter Lippmann

Yep, that's why you kill them before they can kill you, for certainly they
*will* kill you if you do nothing.

--
Keith

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net>
wrote (in <yYCdnQUa_sWjWuvfRVn-hQ@comcast.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

To get back at them, he started putting old cigarette butts into their
coffee. According to him, they liked the coffee better...

.....but he was administering a poison. Good job none of the crew had a
medical condition under which that poison is particularly fatal. DON'T
try this at home (or away), kiddies!
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 2 May 2005 22:11:32 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schreef in
bericht news:87vc71pqbf1dutjprdkvmri0bpfieg2dhf@4ax.com...

Draw a graph. X-axis is how much money we spend supressing illegal
drugs. Y-axis is how much harm is done to the users of those drugs.
Are you arguing that the curve is flat, or even slopes upward?

It would be nice to have a graph a bit more recent, but okay:
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/angles_graph.cfm?issue_type=illegal_drugs&id=157&graph=ffdrugsrecent.jpg
Looks rather flat to me. A worthless graph anyway, the only
useful y-axis would be an axis that indicates the amount of
problems it causes, expressed in extra costs to the community.
Anything else would be drawing a comparison graph of apples
and oranges.

I suspect that if certain drugs were freely and cheaply available,
great social harm and lots of personal misery would result.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Look at the last chart on bottom of this page:
http://www.cannabisireland.com/statistics.html

And how does that reason with this:
http://www.cannabisireland.com/holland.html

...you figure it out.


Cannabis is fairly low on the harm scale; minor lung damage, learning
problems, car crashes. Here in San Francisco, Mexican heroin is cheap,
and the hospital emergency rooms are impacted by a stream of people
who have shot up their veins so much they've had to move on to
inter-muscular injection, which causes nasty, hard-to treat necrosies.
One hospital visit can cost a hundred thousand dollars or more to
treat, and these people don't have insurance. Two emergency rooms here
have closed because of this. Escasy has done neurological damage to
lots of kids. Steroids are bad news. Speed does kill.


As currently result from cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, television,
hydrogenated shortenings, and possibly pornography.

From Mr. "Are we having fun yet" I would expect a bit more
acceptance of common ingredients of life such as "cigarettes,
alcohol, gambling, television, hydrogenated shortenings, and
possibly pornography".

I have a friend who treats men for sexual disfunction, and he tells us
wild, sick, gruesomely funny stories about how porn wrecks some
peoples' lives.

So, f'ing what. Big deal. So *some* have a problem. That's life. You
shouldn't prevent all from something just because a few have a few
issues. As I have said, life itself is *absolutely* the most harmful
situation that can ever be achieved. If we prevent all births there
would be zero suffering in this world.

How any one can deliberately allow a new born into this world that will
undergo so much pain as in, first vaccinations, love break-ups, having
their parents die, having dad buy them an edsal, rather then a porche,
and knowing that they will, in time, cease to exist themselves.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 2 May 2005 19:54:09 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
c8oc71dkt1ck196k2cnv8f9rq6g4letnm7@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:
On Mon, 2 May 2005 17:48:42 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

[snip]

In the US, you can be jailed for selling either if the sale is known
to be for the purpose of administering the drug to a person.


Sure; would you have it otherwise?


Not me! How about you?




There will always be
another one along in a minute. (Of course, the drug itself isn't
illegal; it's possession of it which is illegal.


Agreed, you don't see a lot of vials of cocaine serving prison
terms.


This sort of qualtitative argument is common. The reality is in
the numbers. If we allow anyone to manufacture/synthesize/sell
any drug they wish to, what effect does it have on public health?
Do we want all the wimpy schoolboys to shoot steroids to make
themselves more manly (or for the girls, more "toned")?

Of course not. First, only the very stupid ones would do that.

There are many such. Do we provide them the means to damage
themselves just because they're dumb? Is the the New Eugenics?

No, it's realism. in practice, we can't stop them, even by throwing
gigabucks at drug control.


Draw a graph. X-axis is how much money we spend supressing illegal
drugs. Y-axis is how much harm is done to the users of those drugs.
Are you arguing that the curve is flat, or even slopes upward?

I suspect that if certain drugs were freely and cheaply available,
great social harm and lots of personal misery would result.

I suspect you suspect wrong.

What do you actually mean by "social harm"? Why should other peoples
feelings be more important then my own?

Hint, evolution is a numbers game. Hint: there is no moral reason why,
as Spock would say "the interests of the many, outweigh the few". Its
just the automatic result of:

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most."

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

As
currently result from cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, television,
hydrogenated shortenings, and possibly pornography.

Leave it out mate. Just what bloody harm to you think comes from porn,
like a strained wrist?

Television...get real...explain exactly what you mean by "harm". Its all
waffle.

As I have said before, cigarettes are a positive boon to the rest of us
that don't smoke. Its Ł15B in tax revenue at an increase in health costs
of only Ł1.5B per year. It also has massive savings in Social Security
cost as smokers die much younger. Less people means more for the rest of
us. The world population has doubled to 6.5B since 1970, there is a
limit as to what the earth can support, if people want to voluntary self
sacrifice their own lives for the greater good, I am all for it.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 19:29:13 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:


Yes. I find the argument of, well marijuana is harmful, so it should
be illegal, completely bogus. Its got f'all do do with state what
someone chooses to do with their own bodies.


Fine, so long as the state does not facilitate the harm, and does not
pay any resulting medical expenses.

And I knew that was coming...Its a completely bogus argument.

*Everything* is harmful (law of entropy), therefore we should make
everything illegal. For example, having a baby will diminishes the
resource available to the rest of us, e.g. fuel, materials etc. In
addition, one has created a life that will experience pain.


Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[rex]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:41:40 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

I have a friend who treats men for sexual disfunction, and he tells us
wild, sick, gruesomely funny stories about how porn wrecks some
peoples' lives.

So, f'ing what. Big deal. So *some* have a problem. That's life. You
shouldn't prevent all from something just because a few have a few
issues. As I have said, life itself is *absolutely* the most harmful
situation that can ever be achieved. If we prevent all births there
would be zero suffering in this world.

How any one can deliberately allow a new born into this world that will
undergo so much pain as in, first vaccinations, love break-ups, having
their parents die, having dad buy them an edsal, rather then a porche,
and knowing that they will, in time, cease to exist themselves.

Don't usually respond to your threads, Kevin. Usually because of lack of
specific knowledge to defend myself.

On this topic (porn etc. wrecking lives), got to think you have it about
perfectly summed up. Even those without without acceptance of your grand
philosophies; any sensible person should see the truth in this.

Uhmm... In parallel with the disfunctional discussion... It should be
mentioned that life is also the most positive experience anyone can have
and allowing a new born into the world also gives the opportunity to
experience all the joy, satisfaction, sense of accomplishment,
connectivity, (should I mention love) etc. too.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

rex wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:41:40 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

I have a friend who treats men for sexual disfunction, and he tells
us wild, sick, gruesomely funny stories about how porn wrecks some
peoples' lives.

So, f'ing what. Big deal. So *some* have a problem. That's life. You
shouldn't prevent all from something just because a few have a few
issues. As I have said, life itself is *absolutely* the most harmful
situation that can ever be achieved. If we prevent all births there
would be zero suffering in this world.

How any one can deliberately allow a new born into this world that
will undergo so much pain as in, first vaccinations, love break-ups,
having their parents die, having dad buy them an edsal, rather then
a porche, and knowing that they will, in time, cease to exist
themselves.

Don't usually respond to your threads, Kevin. Usually because of lack
of specific knowledge to defend myself.

On this topic (porn etc. wrecking lives), got to think you have it
about perfectly summed up. Even those without without acceptance of
your grand philosophies; any sensible person should see the truth in
this.

Uhmm... In parallel with the disfunctional discussion... It should be
mentioned that life is also the most positive experience anyone can
have and allowing a new born into the world also gives the
opportunity to experience all the joy, satisfaction, sense of
accomplishment, connectivity, (should I mention love) etc. too.

Of course.

Without "life", i.e. consciousness, there can be no experience at all.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 17:35:08 -0700, Bob Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net>
wrote:

[snip]

A friend of mine spent time as cook on a freighter. He is a bit of an
arrogant MIT jerk
[snip]
---
Bob Monsen

Smile when you say that, pardner ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:46:36 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
....
I suspect that if certain drugs were freely and cheaply available,
great social harm and lots of personal misery would result.

I suspect you suspect wrong.

What do you actually mean by "social harm"? Why should other peoples
feelings be more important then my own?

Hint, evolution is a numbers game. Hint: there is no moral reason why,
as Spock would say "the interests of the many, outweigh the few". Its
just the automatic result of:

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most."

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

I disagree here, but not with your premise - only your explanation. I
agree with you that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
is bogus - it's juat one of the platitudes that the power-trippers use
to subjugate you. The only reason it works in practice is that "the
many" outnumber "the few" and can gang up on them and take what they want
by force.

It doesn't matter how big a lynch mob you put together - if theft,
murder, mayhem, and so on are "wrong" for one to commit, then they're
"wrong" for a crowd to commit as well.

Cheers!
Rich