PDA

View Full Version : drug tests



Drug Free
02-01-2004, 01:01 AM
I really wish my school had mandatory drug tests so that all the people that think ist "cool" to use drugs can be punished.
________
Yamaha XT225 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Yamaha_XT225)

Sean The Red
02-01-2004, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by Drug Free
I really wish my school had mandatory drug tests so that all the people that think ist "cool" to use drugs can be punished.

With a mentality like that I'm surprised you dont punish them yourself with a 9mm. Just because people are stupid doesnt mean they should be punished, just because they do drugs, doesnt mean they should be punished. Rather than punishing them, they need help, people might start drugs thinking its cool, but they arent going to change their habbits without help.

xsecx
02-01-2004, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
With a mentality like that I'm surprised you dont punish them yourself with a 9mm. Just because people are stupid doesnt mean they should be punished, just because they do drugs, doesnt mean they should be punished. Rather than punishing them, they need help, people might start drugs thinking its cool, but they arent going to change their habbits without help.

wouldn't the punishments be viewed as a means of help? also, isn't fear of punishment what stops most negative behavior not because people think it's wrong?

Sean The Red
02-01-2004, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
wouldn't the punishments be viewed as a means of help? also, isn't fear of punishment what stops most negative behavior not because people think it's wrong?

no, when talking about drug use, fear doesnt stop negative behavior. I will use California, and its prison system, overflowing with drug users as an example. We punish drug users, send them to jail, and when they get out, an overwhelming majority of they pick their habit back up. They have been to prison, know what its like, and fear it, but their addictions are strong enough to overcome fear. The only way to end people's addictions is to help them, sometimes by force, put punishment is not going to help anything but our egos.

xsecx
02-02-2004, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
no, when talking about drug use, fear doesnt stop negative behavior. I will use California, and its prison system, overflowing with drug users as an example. We punish drug users, send them to jail, and when they get out, an overwhelming majority of they pick their habit back up. They have been to prison, know what its like, and fear it, but their addictions are strong enough to overcome fear. The only way to end people's addictions is to help them, sometimes by force, put punishment is not going to help anything but our egos.

yeah, but those are adults with well established habits. what's to say it wouldn't work with children still forming them?

Sean The Red
02-02-2004, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
yeah, but those are adults with well established habits. what's to say it wouldn't work with children still forming them?

because I was one, and fear didnt stop me or my friends, or anyone else I knew. It doesnt stop those who grew up and continued their habits; however, for those of us that have stopped, what did help was compassion and assistance, regardless of if we wanted it.

xsecx
02-02-2004, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
because I was one, and fear didnt stop me or my friends, or anyone else I knew. It doesnt stop those who grew up and continued their habits; however, for those of us that have stopped, what did help was compassion and assistance, regardless of if we wanted it.

yeah, but did you have to deal with drug tests or the knowledge that you would be caught and forced to deal with punishment?

Sean The Red
02-02-2004, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
yeah, but did you have to deal with drug tests or the knowledge that you would be caught and forced to deal with punishment?

drug tests no. cops, dogs, and nosy christians yes. random drug tests would have been much prefered, then they are going after, and checking everyone, cops and dogs can search individuals that fit profiles, and christians that operated a church near by would call the school and tell them when people were walking out.

Sean The Red
02-02-2004, 10:09 PM
I didnt answer the second part of that.

Yes, in a place like the Santa Cruz mountains, where pot flows like water, you had better believe that kids are told in school that the world will come crashing down around them if they are found with drugs. Which is kinda ironic since the Mayor distributed pot to cancer patients on the city hall steps...

xsecx
02-03-2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
drug tests no. cops, dogs, and nosy christians yes. random drug tests would have been much prefered, then they are going after, and checking everyone, cops and dogs can search individuals that fit profiles, and christians that operated a church near by would call the school and tell them when people were walking out.

that's only if you're in possession while at school. nothing stopping you from getting high at home. this isn't even close to the same kind of deterant.

Sean The Red
02-03-2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
that's only if you're in possession while at school. nothing stopping you from getting high at home. this isn't even close to the same kind of deterant.

it wouldnt have mattered

xsecx
02-03-2004, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
it wouldnt have mattered

sure it does. you're trying to say that random searches are the same as drug tests, and they aren't. they aren't on the same level of deterent.

sabresnmets
02-03-2004, 11:02 PM
there is a school in my area that wants to have drug sniffing dogs search the schools.

Sean The Red
02-04-2004, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by xsecx
sure it does. you're trying to say that random searches are the same as drug tests, and they aren't. they aren't on the same level of deterent.

no, I'm not saying they are the same, I'm saying it wouldnt have made a difference to have random tests

xsecx
02-04-2004, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
no, I'm not saying they are the same, I'm saying it wouldnt have made a difference to have random tests

except that you have nothing to base that on, since there weren't random drug tests.

Sean The Red
02-04-2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
except that you have nothing to base that on, since there weren't random drug tests.

In leiu of the actual experience, I am basing it on the attitudes of my friends and myself, which leades me conclude that it wouldnt have made a difference. Your arguement that drug tests would help is just as well founded as mine.

Further, I should also point this out. random drug testing, has only been authorized by the Supreme Court for when students participate in extracurricular activities, or when there is an imediate danger; however, that does not mean the school can simply test everyone, that would be unconstitutional. This as you can guess is something that school districts across the country have been trying to change since 98 when the first ruling was made. Justice Ginsburg points out that "students involved in extracurriculars are probably less likely to be pot-heads than the guys who hang around under the bleachers"--From the editorial.

So while there is a chance that our actions would have been detured, none of us were involved in extracurriculars, or would have done so in our wildest dreams. So I think my arguement that it wouldnt have made a difference is well founded

Supreme Court Ruling
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=10th&navby=case&no=006128

Condensed Editorial
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2063370

xsecx
02-04-2004, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
In leiu of the actual experience, I am basing it on the attitudes of my friends and myself, which leades me conclude that it wouldnt have made a difference. Your arguement that drug tests would help is just as well founded as mine.

Further, I should also point this out. random drug testing, has only been authorized by the Supreme Court for when students participate in extracurricular activities, or when there is an imediate danger; however, that does not mean the school can simply test everyone, that would be unconstitutional. This as you can guess is something that school districts across the country have been trying to change since 98 when the first ruling was made. Justice Ginsburg points out that "students involved in extracurriculars are probably less likely to be pot-heads than the guys who hang around under the bleachers"--From the editorial.

So while there is a chance that our actions would have been detured, none of us were involved in extracurriculars, or would have done so in our wildest dreams. So I think my arguement that it wouldnt have made a difference is well founded

Supreme Court Ruling
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=10th&navby=case&no=006128

Condensed Editorial
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2063370

yeah, but the attitudes aren't based on a legitimate threat and are therefore irrelevant.

the point also isn't whether or not it's legal at this time, it's whether or not it'd be effective. is there a better deterant than knowing you'll get caught? I mean shit, look at how many people stopped using p2p software.

Sean The Red
02-04-2004, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
yeah, but the attitudes aren't based on a legitimate threat and are therefore irrelevant.

the point also isn't whether or not it's legal at this time, it's whether or not it'd be effective. is there a better deterant than knowing you'll get caught? I mean shit, look at how many people stopped using p2p software.

Youre going to have to explain more how you come to the conclusion that since it wasnt there, I cant use what I do know of how I reacted to similar situations, to formulate how I would likely react to that situtation.

We agree, the point is if it is effective or not, however it has never been stated that there would be a change in the legalities with with it is used. the difference is like that of going for a test drive and the dealership rep saying you cant go above 25mph, sure you can drive the car, but youre not going to live your life in it at 25mph, and cant get a real feeling for how it will handle at every day speeds. Given the current legal bounds within which drug testing can be used, it is not, and will not act as a worth while deterant. However it would be a terrible error to change the law and create a situation where all students would be required to submit to randomized drug testing.

xsecx
02-04-2004, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
Youre going to have to explain more how you come to the conclusion that since it wasnt there, I cant use what I do know of how I reacted to similar situations, to formulate how I would likely react to that situtation.

We agree, the point is if it is effective or not, however it has never been stated that there would be a change in the legalities with with it is used. the difference is like that of going for a test drive and the dealership rep saying you cant go above 25mph, sure you can drive the car, but youre not going to live your life in it at 25mph, and cant get a real feeling for how it will handle at every day speeds. Given the current legal bounds within which drug testing can be used, it is not, and will not act as a worth while deterant. However it would be a terrible error to change the law and create a situation where all students would be required to submit to randomized drug testing.

you can't compare apples to oranges like there were apples to apples. searches aren't the same as drug tests. You can't use your experience with drug sniffing dogs and take that to mean you and everyone around you would react the same if everyone was forced to submit to a drug test.

and a better analogy would be that everytime you go in your car you know you'd get a speeding ticket if you went over the limit. would tht stop you from speeding?

Sean The Red
02-04-2004, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
you can't compare apples to oranges like there were apples to apples. searches aren't the same as drug tests. You can't use your experience with drug sniffing dogs and take that to mean you and everyone around you would react the same if everyone was forced to submit to a drug test.

and a better analogy would be that everytime you go in your car you know you'd get a speeding ticket if you went over the limit. would tht stop you from speeding?

I'm not comparing those, I was comparing drug testing within legal limits, to drug testing without limits, and not the analogy seems worse than ever.

xsecx
02-04-2004, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
I'm not comparing those, I was comparing drug testing within legal limits, to drug testing without limits, and not the analogy seems worse than ever.

since when? you were talking about how drug tests wouldn't have stopped you and your friends?

how is it worse than ever? Would it deter you from speeding?

Sean The Red
02-05-2004, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by xsecx
since when? you were talking about how drug tests wouldn't have stopped you and your friends?

how is it worse than ever? Would it deter you from speeding?

because it seemed pretty good when I wrote it. Yes, it would deter me, however random drug tests are more like you could get a ticket if you got in the fast lane on the freeway.

xsecx
02-05-2004, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
because it seemed pretty good when I wrote it. Yes, it would deter me, however random drug tests are more like you could get a ticket if you got in the fast lane on the freeway.

still increases your chances. and even so, after you get a ticket, do you slow down?

You can't really argue that it wouldn't work as a deterant, because it would. Fear is an amazing deterant. You can however argue that it might not be the best thing for society.

Sean The Red
02-06-2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
still increases your chances. and even so, after you get a ticket, do you slow down?

You can't really argue that it wouldn't work as a deterant, because it would. Fear is an amazing deterant. You can however argue that it might not be the best thing for society.

Yes, for the time being, however if I remember correctly, you yourself got three speeding tickets in a row didnt you? Why didnt you stop after one, by my understanding of your argument, it should have been enough? now you keep it at the limit, but the stakes have grown greater, and you undoubtable have grown up (even a little) since then. Even with fear being the amazing deterant that it is, the "I'm going to do whatever I want," the "Dont tell me what to do", or the "Its my life" mentalities that youth have, will drive them to defiance, and will only cease that when they grow up (mentally.)

As for social health, not only is a bad idea, it is politically morally compromizing on a number of levels, of which I cannot begin to state, other than to emphasize that it would be like putting the Ministries of Love, and Truth in charge of our education system.

xsecx
02-07-2004, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
Yes, for the time being, however if I remember correctly, you yourself got three speeding tickets in a row didnt you? Why didnt you stop after one, by my understanding of your argument, it should have been enough? now you keep it at the limit, but the stakes have grown greater, and you undoubtable have grown up (even a little) since then. Even with fear being the amazing deterant that it is, the "I'm going to do whatever I want," the "Dont tell me what to do", or the "Its my life" mentalities that youth have, will drive them to defiance, and will only cease that when they grow up (mentally.)

As for social health, not only is a bad idea, it is politically morally compromizing on a number of levels, of which I cannot begin to state, other than to emphasize that it would be like putting the Ministries of Love, and Truth in charge of our education system.

no I didn't I got 2 speeding tickets several years apart. But that's also not the point. If a system was set up with speed cameras like in england where if you are speeding in a general area, you will get a ticket it would decrease speeding in that area. If there was a speed trap, the theoretical equivalent to drug testing in school, it would decrease speeding in that area. Just like random drug testing would decrease the use of drugs amongst students.

how is it morally compromising?

straightXed
02-07-2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
no I didn't I got 2 speeding tickets several years apart. But that's also not the point. If a system was set up with speed cameras like in england where if you are speeding in a general area, you will get a ticket it would decrease speeding in that area. If there was a speed trap, the theoretical equivalent to drug testing in school, it would decrease speeding in that area. Just like random drug testing would decrease the use of drugs amongst students.

how is it morally compromising?

People have taken to blowing up the speed cameras though.

Sean The Red
02-07-2004, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
no I didn't I got 2 speeding tickets several years apart. But that's also not the point. If a system was set up with speed cameras like in england where if you are speeding in a general area, you will get a ticket it would decrease speeding in that area. If there was a speed trap, the theoretical equivalent to drug testing in school, it would decrease speeding in that area. Just like random drug testing would decrease the use of drugs amongst students.

how is it morally compromising?

I can sum it up in 4 words: "telescreen" and "Ministry of Love"

After talking with my brother, who is now a freshman where I went to school, I have concluded it would help, however I believe it is because the mentality of kids there has changed.

xsecx
02-07-2004, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
I can sum it up in 4 words: "telescreen" and "Ministry of Love"

After talking with my brother, who is now a freshman where I went to school, I have concluded it would help, however I believe it is because the mentality of kids there has changed.

fictional accounts of future.

Sean The Red
02-08-2004, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by xsecx
fictional accounts of future.

fictional accounts of past, and not necessarly entirely implausable

xsecx
02-08-2004, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
fictional accounts of past, and not necessarly entirely implausable

it's completely implausable. it's as implausable as a handmaid tale or any other book that sets an oppressive gov't in the country.

Sean The Red
02-09-2004, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by xsecx
it's completely implausable. it's as implausable as a handmaid tale or any other book that sets an oppressive gov't in the country.

well I think thats a matter of difference of opinion

xsecx
02-09-2004, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
well I think thats a matter of difference of opinion

then point to a 1st world country that has gone that way.

Sean The Red
02-10-2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by xsecx
then point to a 1st world country that has gone that way.

thats a fallacy, just because it hasnt happened, doesnt mean it couldnt. The past is not a model for the future.

xsecx
02-10-2004, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
thats a fallacy, just because it hasnt happened, doesnt mean it couldnt. The past is not a model for the future.

no it's not. I'm saying point to something that's gone in that direction. and yes, the past is in fact that best model of the future.

Sean The Red
02-10-2004, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
no it's not. I'm saying point to something that's gone in that direction. and yes, the past is in fact that best model of the future.

If I am trying to draw a dog, but all I have around for reference is one of my chinchillas, while it does make it the best model, that doesnt make it a worthwhile model.

And yes, it is a fallacy. There is a possibility my brother will grow up to wear nothing but blue, however you cant sit there and say "well show me a time when he has worn all blue before." The past and the future are not connected.

xsecx
02-10-2004, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
If I am trying to draw a dog, but all I have around for reference is one of my chinchillas, while it does make it the best model, that doesnt make it a worthwhile model.

And yes, it is a fallacy. There is a possibility my brother will grow up to wear nothing but blue, however you cant sit there and say "well show me a time when he has worn all blue before." The past and the future are not connected.

your analogies suck. if you're trying to say that dogs will eventually start walking on 2 legs and be more human like, you'd need to show evidence, things you can point to to demonstrate that it's going that way.

yeah, because you know, things aren't built upon other things. seriously, did you read what you just wrote? I'm asking you to point to examples of things starting, since you think it's possible. If it's possible, it has to be based on evidence.

Sean The Red
02-11-2004, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by xsecx
your analogies suck. if you're trying to say that dogs will eventually start walking on 2 legs and be more human like, you'd need to show evidence, things you can point to to demonstrate that it's going that way.

yeah, because you know, things aren't built upon other things. seriously, did you read what you just wrote? I'm asking you to point to examples of things starting, since you think it's possible. If it's possible, it has to be based on evidence.

When have I ever said my analogies arent total ass? Its totally different if youre saying it is a possibility. Its not saying dogs will walk on two legs, it is saying that they might, only this isnt so far fetched.

A first world country that has gone that way: PRC, and many people would argue, Vietnam

As far as evidense:
The closest things that have come to The Party of 1984 within the last hundred years: Soviet Socialism, and Nazi Fascism, Pol Pot/ Khmer Rouge. All of these things have happened by a minority pushing themselves on a majority. Within the United States, while he was unsuccessful, McCarthy in the 50's, wanted to impose a thought police state, through "hunting down commies." Later, our Eurasia and Eastasia was the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, etc.

Now, we have Osama Bin Laden as our Goldstein, and terrorism as our unconquerable enemy. Muslims within our country have been held without bail, without hearings, and without being told why, for extended periods of time, even though they havent broken any laws. Salon.com has a leading story about multiple police estabilshments spying on people, infultrating anti-war group meetings. Does this mean we are going to end up in orwell's world, no, do these things mirror many of the things you would associate with it, yes.

xsecx
02-11-2004, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
When have I ever said my analogies arent total ass? Its totally different if youre saying it is a possibility. Its not saying dogs will walk on two legs, it is saying that they might, only this isnt so far fetched.

A first world country that has gone that way: PRC, and many people would argue, Vietnam

As far as evidense:
The closest things that have come to The Party of 1984 within the last hundred years: Soviet Socialism, and Nazi Fascism, Pol Pot/ Khmer Rouge. All of these things have happened by a minority pushing themselves on a majority. Within the United States, while he was unsuccessful, McCarthy in the 50's, wanted to impose a thought police state, through "hunting down commies." Later, our Eurasia and Eastasia was the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, etc.

Now, we have Osama Bin Laden as our Goldstein, and terrorism as our unconquerable enemy. Muslims within our country have been held without bail, without hearings, and without being told why, for extended periods of time, even though they havent broken any laws. Salon.com has a leading story about multiple police estabilshments spying on people, infultrating anti-war group meetings. Does this mean we are going to end up in orwell's world, no, do these things mirror many of the things you would associate with it, yes.

for something to be possible you need supporting evidence Vietnam isn't and has never been first world. and china arguably isn't either.

and you're confusing "war time combatants" being held in guatmo with people here. People have to be willing to give up civil liberties for us to go orwellian, and that's something that simply won't happen. It's easy to go from one form of oppression to another. It's something all together different to go from fairly non restrictive to completely restrictive without major resistance. That's why it'll never happen.

Sean The Red
02-11-2004, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by xsecx
for something to be possible you need supporting evidence Vietnam isn't and has never been first world. and china arguably isn't either.

and you're confusing "war time combatants" being held in guatmo with people here. People have to be willing to give up civil liberties for us to go orwellian, and that's something that simply won't happen. It's easy to go from one form of oppression to another. It's something all together different to go from fairly non restrictive to completely restrictive without major resistance. That's why it'll never happen.

I am going to leave china out of this because I dont know as much about them, but Vietnam is a first world nation, and if you dont believe me, go check out the CIA fact book. Vietnam was a first world nation, prior to the second world war, when it was still french indonesia, the economy and politics mirrored that of France. After the second world war, and until the end of the "american war," you would have an argument, but once the conflict was over. Vietnam began to grow, and in recent years has had a 7~10% annual growth (and many of our jobs are being sent there fyi.) A 94% literacy rate, including a larger rural population. An annual surplus of food, and amusingly enough, for farmers, taxes are paid in rice. The HIV/AIDS prevelence rate of .03% (half that of the US,) further, both government (obviously) and tourist reports state that citizens have atiquate medical supervision. The only area of real lacking is telecommunications. For an area roughly that of New Mexico, and which was established within the last 30 years, all the things that make a country first world (adiquate housing, food, clothing, health care, etc.) the country has achieved.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/vm.html

xsecx
02-11-2004, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
I am going to leave china out of this because I dont know as much about them, but Vietnam is a first world nation, and if you dont believe me, go check out the CIA fact book. Vietnam was a first world nation, prior to the second world war, when it was still french indonesia, the economy and politics mirrored that of France. After the second world war, and until the end of the "american war," you would have an argument, but once the conflict was over. Vietnam began to grow, and in recent years has had a 7~10% annual growth (and many of our jobs are being sent there fyi.) A 94% literacy rate, including a larger rural population. An annual surplus of food, and amusingly enough, for farmers, taxes are paid in rice. The HIV/AIDS prevelence rate of .03% (half that of the US,) further, both government (obviously) and tourist reports state that citizens have atiquate medical supervision. The only area of real lacking is telecommunications. For an area roughly that of New Mexico, and which was established within the last 30 years, all the things that make a country first world (adiquate housing, food, clothing, health care, etc.) the country has achieved.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/vm.html

so they dictate international policy? they're a member of the g7? they're on the UN security council?

Vietnam doesn't qualify. Japan, UK, US, France, Germany, Canada, etc

sabresnmets
02-11-2004, 04:53 PM
man, these replies are so damn long i just see how long they are, and skip right on to the next one and that one is also too long.

straightXed
02-11-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by sabresnmets
man, these replies are so damn long i just see how long they are, and skip right on to the next one and that one is also too long.
i tend to read them until its pattacake.

Sean The Red
02-11-2004, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
so they dictate international policy? they're a member of the g7? they're on the UN security council?

Vietnam doesn't qualify. Japan, UK, US, France, Germany, Canada, etc

Your response is unsatisfactory, in that it is way too vague, if you mean it doesnt qualify because you say they arent/dont "so they dictate international policy? they're a member of the g7? they're on the UN security council?"

A First World Nation is not defined by its political power, nor does it have to do with being on the security council. Angolia is on the Council, and it isnt by any means a first world nation, literacy: total population: 42% male: 56% female: 28% (1998 est.). Vietnam is an observer state of the WTO, if you are looking for trade prowess. "First World" is defined by its ability to provide for the needs of its people ie: food, clothing, shelter, etc.

Sean The Red
02-11-2004, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by sabresnmets
man, these replies are so damn long i just see how long they are, and skip right on to the next one and that one is also too long.

this is what you get when two opinionated people who are always right, start going at it.

straightXed
02-11-2004, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
this is what you get when two opinionated people who are always right, start going at it.

so you don't think he's wrong?

Sean The Red
02-11-2004, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by straightXed
so you don't think he's wrong?

no, I certainly do think he is wrong on everything that has been brought up on this thread, otherwise we wouldnt be going at it

xsecx
02-11-2004, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
Your response is unsatisfactory, in that it is way too vague, if you mean it doesnt qualify because you say they arent/dont "so they dictate international policy? they're a member of the g7? they're on the UN security council?"

A First World Nation is not defined by its political power, nor does it have to do with being on the security council. Angolia is on the Council, and it isnt by any means a first world nation, literacy: total population: 42% male: 56% female: 28% (1998 est.). Vietnam is an observer state of the WTO, if you are looking for trade prowess. "First World" is defined by its ability to provide for the needs of its people ie: food, clothing, shelter, etc.

"The terms first world, second world, and third world are used to divide the nations of Earth into three broad categories. Originally, the term "first world" referred to capitalist societies, the term "second world" to centrally planned ones, whereas "third world" stood for tribal systems. During the Cold War, the phrase "first world" referred to nations within the United States' sphere of influence, the phrase "second world" to nations within the Soviet Union's sphere of influence, and the phrase "third world" to nations within neither sphere. After the Cold War, "first world" began to refer to countries with "Western" societies and large economies and "third world" to developing countries in regions such as Africa (because originally neither Cold War superpower bothered with such countries); with the fall of Leninist Communism the term "second world" largely fell out of use."


vietnam would qualify as second world. not first world.

xsecx
02-11-2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
this is what you get when two opinionated people who are always right, start going at it.

well. I'm certainly right all the time. you just think you until you're schooled.

xsecx
02-11-2004, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by straightXed
i tend to read them until its pattacake.

what you don't like it when things veir dangerously off course and have nothing left to do with the original point?

sabresnmets
02-11-2004, 08:17 PM
i dont mind, i just mind it when a response exceeds like 7 lines, i just click my little mouse right passed it.

Sean The Red
02-12-2004, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by xsecx
well. I'm certainly right all the time. you just think you until you're schooled.

or until you close the thread.... and I have been schooling you with the past few post. but honestly, I really dont think we should do this kind of thing. Think of what could be done if we put our energy into other things. I could sit around and play with my chinchillas, and you could spend a few moments at home, not on call, with viv and your cats.

Sean The Red
02-12-2004, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by sabresnmets
i dont mind, i just mind it when a response exceeds like 7 lines, i just click my little mouse right passed it.

try getting a bigger monitor, and running at a higher resolution, cuts down on the number of lines...

xsecx
02-12-2004, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
or until you close the thread.... and I have been schooling you with the past few post. but honestly, I really dont think we should do this kind of thing. Think of what could be done if we put our energy into other things. I could sit around and play with my chinchillas, and you could spend a few moments at home, not on call, with viv and your cats.

with incorrect notions? even with things in front of you you find it impossible to come to terms with you being wrong.

straightXed
02-12-2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
what you don't like it when things veir dangerously off course and have nothing left to do with the original point?

depends why they are veiring off course.

straightXed
02-12-2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
no, I certainly do think he is wrong on everything that has been brought up on this thread, otherwise we wouldnt be going at it

but you said you were both right?

Sean The Red
02-12-2004, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by straightXed
but you said you were both right?

no, I said we both think we are right. I however, actualy am right, and I have the AFL-CIO, Supreme Court, and every other privacy rights group on my side too.

xsecx
02-12-2004, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
no, I said we both think we are right. I however, actualy am right, and I have the AFL-CIO, Supreme Court, and every other privacy rights group on my side too.

how do you figure this? bring up some quotes that mention orwellian theory in practice.

xsecx
02-12-2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
no, I said we both think we are right. I however, actualy am right, and I have the AFL-CIO, Supreme Court, and every other privacy rights group on my side too.


and to drive home a point:

so they all think incorrectly that Vietnam is a first world country too?

Sean The Red
02-12-2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
how do you figure this? bring up some quotes that mention orwellian theory in practice.

I figure I am right because:
I gave you links to the Supreme Court ruling, on the subject of testing in schools. If you really doubt that the AFL-CIO is against them, I will go ahead and dig that up as well, as well as statements from the liberitarian party, and others. Or, you can aknowledge the blatent truth that these organizations are ideologically opposed to it (testing.) If I am in line with the Supreme Court, then it means I am right; because, the Supreme Court is always right, except for when they do something that ends with constitutional amendment to over rule them. Even when you believe you are right, but the Supreme Court disagrees, then you are infact wrong.

As far as the rest of it goes:
The whole Orwell thing is really about that I think our society is moving toward a more controlling, 1984 like, state of being.
If we have randomized drug testing, for students, we might as well have telescreens in our houses, and establish the thought police. Orwell points out in the book that all superpowers need an enemy, they had the <something>asias, and Goldburg. Since the United States achieved Superpower status at the end of the first world war, we have always had an enemy, and more so, a single person with which to associate that hate. With each itteration of domination of the enemy, that enemy becomes more elusive. It began with Soviet Socialism, and then moved to German Fascism when Hitler came up. After world war two, it moved to the Soviet Union, with Stalin, and 'communist agression.'After Stalin's death, it shifted to a more broad anticommunist sentiment, that was manifest in the Korean, and Vietnam Wars. With the collapse of the USSR, the US embarked on a series of erratic wars, which were largely unsuccessful in Uniting the people. Now, we have Osama, and the War on Terrorism. We dont know where Osama is, and he continues to release his propaganda, he is our goldstein, a character that nobody can locate, and that everyone hates. He is the subject of our 'two minute hate.' Our never war drive, is with the War on Terror, we can shift the target with little difficulty, all we need to do is say there is a threat, and that we have the right to defend ourselves. I think that is enough rambling for one post.

straightXed
02-12-2004, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
no, I said we both think we are right. I however, actualy am right, and I have the AFL-CIO, Supreme Court, and every other privacy rights group on my side too.

no you didn't:

Originally posted by Sean The Red
this is what you get when two opinionated people who are always right, start going at it.

xsecx
02-12-2004, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Sean The Red
I figure I am right because:
I gave you links to the Supreme Court ruling, on the subject of testing in schools. If you really doubt that the AFL-CIO is against them, I will go ahead and dig that up as well, as well as statements from the liberitarian party, and others. Or, you can aknowledge the blatent truth that these organizations are ideologically opposed to it (testing.) If I am in line with the Supreme Court, then it means I am right; because, the Supreme Court is always right, except for when they do something that ends with constitutional amendment to over rule them. Even when you believe you are right, but the Supreme Court disagrees, then you are infact wrong.



are you high? how the hell do you jump around things and expect them to be relevant? You go from talking about big brother, back to the original with no mention to anyone or anything? Our course there is the fact that we were disgussing the whether or not drug testing would be effective. Not the legallity of it, but hey, whatever gets you by.



As far as the rest of it goes:
The whole Orwell thing is really about that I think our society is moving toward a more controlling, 1984 like, state of being.
If we have randomized drug testing, for students, we might as well have telescreens in our houses, and establish the thought police. Orwell points out in the book that all superpowers need an enemy, they had the <something>asias, and Goldburg. Since the United States achieved Superpower status at the end of the first world war, we have always had an enemy, and more so, a single person with which to associate that hate. With each itteration of domination of the enemy, that enemy becomes more elusive. It began with Soviet Socialism, and then moved to German Fascism when Hitler came up. After world war two, it moved to the Soviet Union, with Stalin, and 'communist agression.'After Stalin's death, it shifted to a more broad anticommunist sentiment, that was manifest in the Korean, and Vietnam Wars. With the collapse of the USSR, the US embarked on a series of erratic wars, which were largely unsuccessful in Uniting the people. Now, we have Osama, and the War on Terrorism. We dont know where Osama is, and he continues to release his propaganda, he is our goldstein, a character that nobody can locate, and that everyone hates. He is the subject of our 'two minute hate.' Our never war drive, is with the War on Terror, we can shift the target with little difficulty, all we need to do is say there is a threat, and that we have the right to defend ourselves. I think that is enough rambling for one post.

one post that doesn't do anything to illustrate a point. how does drug testing of studetns mean " we might as well have telescreens in our houses, and establish the thought police. "

You make these major leeps without anything in between.

sabresnmets
02-12-2004, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
are you high? how the hell do you jump around things and expect them to be relevant? You go from talking about big brother, back to the original with no mention to anyone or anything? Our course there is the fact that we were disgussing the whether or not drug testing would be effective. Not the legallity of it, but hey, whatever gets you by.



one post that doesn't do anything to illustrate a point. how does drug testing of studetns mean " we might as well have telescreens in our houses, and establish the thought police. "

You make these major leeps without anything in between.



what the fuck?! didnt we just talk about this?

devilhoused
03-12-2004, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
wouldn't the punishments be viewed as a means of help? also, isn't fear of punishment what stops most negative behavior not because people think it's wrong? there was a general that said something like: "fear makes them do what they're told, but if they love you, they'll save your life."

we are x and love our lives as we are living. if everyone were drug-free because he loves his life, it would be ideal. instead, the wool is pulled over the eyes of society and ppl remain subservient to drugs and the promise of false hope. a method to beating this needs to be small and consistent. we are all working toward this goal: social awareness. our influence is steady and powerful. if they are overcome by fear, they may become compelled to abuse at greater lengths (using other methods) which is yet another obstacle to conquer.

since this goal is distant yet attainable, many choose to better themselves and hope others follow. exemplify; let them comply... :)

boom. now pass the toilet paper.

xsecx
03-19-2004, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by devilhoused
there was a general that said something like: "fear makes them do what they're told, but if they love you, they'll save your life."

we are x and love our lives as we are living. if everyone were drug-free because he loves his life, it would be ideal. instead, the wool is pulled over the eyes of society and ppl remain subservient to drugs and the promise of false hope. a method to beating this needs to be small and consistent. we are all working toward this goal: social awareness. our influence is steady and powerful. if they are overcome by fear, they may become compelled to abuse at greater lengths (using other methods) which is yet another obstacle to conquer.

since this goal is distant yet attainable, many choose to better themselves and hope others follow. exemplify; let them comply... :)

boom. now pass the toilet paper.

you haven't actually said anything here. how is this done? What's a better alternative then ?

devilhoused
03-19-2004, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by xsecx
you haven't actually said anything here. how is this done? What's a better alternative then ? the better alternative was stated and otherwise implied all throughout my post. i think the most direct example was in the end when i said: "many choose to better themselves and hope others follow. exemplify; let them comply..." i also used statements like "a method to beating this needs to be small and consistent" and "our [edge] influence is steady and powerful." all of this suggests that "we [edge] are all working toward this goal". if one focuses on one's self, chances are that someone else is going to get a clue. this won't always be true of course... in the meantime, the post was directed more toward the person that started the thread who wanted drug testing implemented in schools and to remind that all fear is defeating. a more peaceful means is already among us.

please post relative comments or questions; i like talking about this!

xsecx
03-19-2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by devilhoused
the better alternative was stated and otherwise implied all throughout my post. i think the most direct example was in the end when i said: "many choose to better themselves and hope others follow. exemplify; let them comply..." i also used statements like "a method to beating this needs to be small and consistent" and "our [edge] influence is steady and powerful." all of this suggests that "we [edge] are all working toward this goal". if one focuses on one's self, chances are that someone else is going to get a clue. this won't always be true of course... in the meantime, the post was directed more toward the person that started the thread who wanted drug testing implemented in schools and to remind that all fear is defeating. a more peaceful means is already among us.

please post relative comments or questions; i like talking about this!

no, you made a long quasi political speech, but didn't actually say HOW things are accomplished, but just made assumptions that things could be accomplished.

"a method to beating this needs to be small and consistent" - ok, fine. what method?

if one focuses soley on themselves how can you be sure that will enact change around you?

devilhoused
03-19-2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by xsecx
no, you made a long quasi political speech, but didn't actually say HOW things are accomplished, but just made assumptions that things could be accomplished.

"a method to beating this needs to be small and consistent" - ok, fine. what method?

if one focuses soley on themselves how can you be sure that will enact change around you? i did, in fact, say how it's accomplished. i'm saying that just by being, i am contributing to the solution because i am drug-free; and so are you contributing. whether it is your intent is up to you. in such a case is the method "small and consistent", granted you abide by good judgement.

my main point is that by using force to insight fear is only effective until the accused abuser begins to fight against it. at that point, the abuser becomes the resistance...

in my senario, we remain the resistance, only the resistance grows... and with each new member, the resistance moves toward becoming the norm. it worked for me in that before becoming completely edge, i had strong limitations. i influenced friends' awareness and they followed suit. then through music and ppl like you on the net, i decided to make the full swing for sxe. i hang around my old friends sometimes and while they remain the same, i remain steadfast. i expect changes in a few attitudes soon...

xsecx
03-20-2004, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by devilhoused
i did, in fact, say how it's accomplished. i'm saying that just by being, i am contributing to the solution because i am drug-free; and so are you contributing. whether it is your intent is up to you. in such a case is the method "small and consistent", granted you abide by good judgement.

my main point is that by using force to insight fear is only effective until the accused abuser begins to fight against it. at that point, the abuser becomes the resistance...

in my senario, we remain the resistance, only the resistance grows... and with each new member, the resistance moves toward becoming the norm. it worked for me in that before becoming completely edge, i had strong limitations. i influenced friends' awareness and they followed suit. then through music and ppl like you on the net, i decided to make the full swing for sxe. i hang around my old friends sometimes and while they remain the same, i remain steadfast. i expect changes in a few attitudes soon...

all you're talking is rhetoric and no substance. How does only focusing on yourself enact social change?

How do you increase the numbers of a subculture to some amount of critical mass when the only way for it to be vital and useful is as a subculture? Influencing people is an active, not a passive thing.

Also, you are greatly discounting the role of fear within society. People don't do bad things because they are inherently good. People don't do bad things because they have learned through out their lives that there are consequences to actions.