Total Posts:193|Showing Posts:151-180|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Myth About People In Jail for Marijuana

GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 12:51:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 10:43:40 AM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 2/11/2013 8:14:46 AM, GWL-CPA wrote:
They are bad for society and mainly destroy the poor and lower middle class who can afford it the least.

In other words...it's a potentially addictive behavior that is only bad when one who has poor self-control becomes enthralled with it. Which can be said about...pretty much everything in life.

No, that is not what I said. And, there are plenty of things in life that are not addictive, although anything can become addictive to someone who suffers from an addictive personality.

Reading books is an enjoyable past time and can be a learning experience; I hope more people become addicted to that lost pastime. Or, the lost pastime of playing parlor games (e.g., Monopoly, Scrabble, Pinochle, Bridge, Hearts, Spades, Rummy, etc.), with the family in the evenings or on weekends instead of becoming addicted to video games and watching TV. Taking daily walks through the woods is an enjoyable experience where you can enjoy life without being stoned.

It would appear that you are not well read with the problem of gambling in our society or the history of gambling and why it was outlawed almost everywhere after the Wild West was tamed.

Here is a fact, in all Casino games the house has the advantage, which means you will lose all your money eventually. In Blackjack, if you count cards, which is illegal and the casino can throw you out of the casino and ban you, you can have a slight percentage age over the house; but, most casinos have gone to 5 decks or more and reshuffle frequently, which makes card counting almost impossible. Poker is played against other opponents and not the house, but the casinos get a rake off every hand (% of the pot or fixed amount of each pot) and even professional poker players have a difficult maintaining a winning hourly rate, despite all the hype you see on TV and in magazine. Sure, there are maybe 1% who will show a lifetime positive ROI " Return on Investment playing poker, but most recreational players will show a lifetime loss.

Most states (32 states, e.g., Alabama, Alaska, Utah, etc.), have banned commercial casinos; but many of those states have had to allows the American Indian Tribes to open Casinos on their Reservation Lands under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988.

Why do you think most states have banned commercial casinos? Well, crime usually goes up around casinos, and too many folks become "enthralled" with it because of all the hype about how much you can win, which is a huge lie. Everyone, but literally a few, lose a lot of money playing at Casinos. And, the majority of the people who play at casinos and gamble at racetracks, dog tracks, etc. are people in the lower middle class and poor that can least afford to waste that money gambling when it should be spend on their families. Gambling is actually a form of regressive tax on the individuals in the local economies.

It is such a huge money maker for most states that they ignore its evils and damaging effects on the poor and lower middle class; but, they do make some rules that are supposed to help curb the addictive nature of gambling. Most Casinos are not allowed to have ATMs in the gambling area itself. All casinos have brochures on "Responsible Gambling" " not because they are honest moral folks and want to protect the gamblers, but because that is legally required.

http://www.gamblingaddiction.org...

Here, we are going to look at some of the statistics about gambling addiction.

According to a study conducted in the United States, it was found out that around 2.5 million adults suffer from gambling addiction whereas 15 million people are under the risk of developing this disorder.

" The Gambling addiction index reveals that around 80 percent or above adults of the nation is engaged in some or other kind of gambling activity at least once in their lives.

" In terms of money, Americans have spent $500 billion on wagers. In addition, 2.9 percent adults of all the entire adult population fall in the category of gambling addicts.

" Gambling addiction is common among Caucasian Americans as against Hispanic Americans or African Americans.

" Research has also shown that drinkers have a high risk of developing gambling addiction than those who don"t drink.

" Families with people suffering gambling addiction have increased number of domestic violence, child abuse.

http://www.gamblingaddiction.org...

Anyway, I believe commercial gambling should be banned everywhere but Vegas and the Indian Casinos all shut down, unless they are in Vegas.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
imabench
Posts: 20,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 2:00:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/10/2013 8:49:45 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:

I don't know what is worse............ calling gay folks normal people who should have the right to get married; or folks demanding the legalization of drugs.

Just letting you know, any credibility you had left at this point is now completely gone.
DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO
8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack)

Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero
The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 2:09:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/10/2013 8:49:45 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:

I don't know what is worse............ calling gay folks normal people who should have the right to get married; or folks demanding the legalization of drugs.


Wut...

http://alltheragefaces.com...
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 2:44:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/10/2013 5:45:52 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/10/2013 5:02:53 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
Part II.

And, do a few stoners get good grades and go on to college? Of Course! There are exceptions to the majority who do not.


My high school had a 100% college advancement rate (white suburban kids represent), despite wide spread use of marijuana.

Probably about half the people I knew in college smoked weed or at least tried it. Some of the people who smoked were and are very successful, some werent.

When I hear you talk about marijuana and alcohol it just sounds like someone totally detached from the culture in which it is used. The things you say bear very little resemblance to my experience around the drug

I don't deny that people abuse marijuana or that it is probably much healthier to totally abstain from using it, just that your portrayal of it sounds like reefer madness with no bearing on the facts on the ground.

Reefer madness, such nonsense, is that the best you have?

First off, the only person who is apparently detached from our culture is you, no offense meant. Living in a college university town full of stoners and working at a University full of stoners is not reality.

The population of Urbana, IL was 41,250 and Champaign was 81,055 or 122,305 for both cities per 2010 Census. The population of students at University of IL, Urbana-Champaign was 32,256 undergraduate and 10,673 graduate students for a total 42,929. So the university population equals 35% of the total population of both cites; and the top employer in that area is the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with 10,900 employees. So who is detached from reality?

Do you remember the idiomatic expression about people who live in ivory towers; it applies to you.

Wow, since you are a TA at the University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, I am assuming you went to a high school in IL. A 100% college advancement rate is mighty impressive, even amongst white folks. Is that your opinion that is based on a few friends, or have you looked at your high school's statistics and can prove your wild claim? I am guessing you have not looked at your high school's actual percentages of those who attended in total and how many went to college.

Now, if you are a wealthy white person who lived in a wealthy predominately white community, where the median home price was $1 million, and were born with that proverbial silver spoon in your mouth and both your parents were college graduates, yes, then the percentages do approach 100%. People born into the wealthy class who get all the advantages in life often do go on to college. Since you appear to be a full time student going for his Ph.D. you might just be one of those folks, your high school friends too.

Yes! There are a few very successful people who have smoked dope; I am betting that most were not daily users and heavy duty stoners. But, even then, a few of them might be successful. But, the overwhelming majority doesn't succeed. Most kids that start smoking dope in grade or high school and smoke a lot (e.g., daily or most of the week) do poorly in school and do not go to college.

I am glad somewhat agree with me "I don't deny that people abuse marijuana or that it is probably much healthier to totally abstain from using it...."
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 2:53:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:00:47 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/10/2013 8:49:45 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:

I don't know what is worse............ calling gay folks normal people who should have the right to get married; or folks demanding the legalization of drugs.

Just letting you know, any credibility you had left at this point is now completely gone.

Many people think gays are sick, including Doctors. Most were raped with they were young by older people of the same sex. They need help.

So, I am doubting that there are many at this site that believe that marriage is between a man and a woman; and children, when possible, should be raised by a married couple - a man and a woman, never by a gay couple

Gays should not have the right to raise children. Children need to be raised in a heterosexual environment to grow-up normally.

And, yes, there are bad heterosexual parents, but that does not mean gays are better or should be allowed to raise children.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 2:59:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:53:55 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:00:47 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/10/2013 8:49:45 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:

I don't know what is worse............ calling gay folks normal people who should have the right to get married; or folks demanding the legalization of drugs.

Just letting you know, any credibility you had left at this point is now completely gone.

Many people think gays are sick, including Doctors. Most were raped with they were young by older people of the same sex. They need help.

Many doctors think gay people are sick and most gay people were raped when they were young? Really, brilliant stuff here.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 3:22:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:59:18 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:53:55 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:00:47 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/10/2013 8:49:45 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:

I don't know what is worse............ calling gay folks normal people who should have the right to get married; or folks demanding the legalization of drugs.

Just letting you know, any credibility you had left at this point is now completely gone.

Many people think gays are sick, including Doctors. Most were raped with they were young by older people of the same sex. They need help.

Many doctors think gay people are sick and most gay people were raped when they were young? Really, brilliant stuff here.

It is brilliant actually; sorry you disagree.

Just for clarification, I don't care what your sexual preference is; just that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is what President Obama did believe before he figured out that it might hurt the Democratic party and vote getting. That makes him two-faced and a liar.

Anyway, thanks for your opinion.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 3:34:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 3:22:45 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:59:18 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:53:55 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:00:47 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/10/2013 8:49:45 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:

I don't know what is worse............ calling gay folks normal people who should have the right to get married; or folks demanding the legalization of drugs.

Just letting you know, any credibility you had left at this point is now completely gone.

Many people think gays are sick, including Doctors. Most were raped with they were young by older people of the same sex. They need help.

Many doctors think gay people are sick and most gay people were raped when they were young? Really, brilliant stuff here.

It is brilliant actually; sorry you disagree.

Just for clarification, I don't care what your sexual preference is; just that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is what President Obama did believe before he figured out that it might hurt the Democratic party and vote getting. That makes him two-faced and a liar.

Anyway, thanks for your opinion.

If you have any shred of actual reliable evidence to back up your outrageous claim I'll gladly look at it.
Until you have such evidence, we can go on assuming that most gay people were not raped when they were young
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 4:07:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 12:51:09 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/11/2013 10:43:40 AM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 2/11/2013 8:14:46 AM, GWL-CPA wrote:
They are bad for society and mainly destroy the poor and lower middle class who can afford it the least.

In other words...it's a potentially addictive behavior that is only bad when one who has poor self-control becomes enthralled with it. Which can be said about...pretty much everything in life.

No, that is not what I said.

No, you didn't say it exactly, but I'm not seeing where else you are going with this. What makes it "bad", other than it has the potential to become an addiction?

And, there are plenty of things in life that are not addictive, although anything can become addictive to someone who suffers from an addictive personality.

...exactly. So how then can you say there are things which are not "addictive"? All addiction is is becoming enthralled with something to an extreme. As anyone can find pleasure in anything, anything has the potential to become an addiction to someone.

So I'm still not seeing why that is, alone, grounds to call something "immoral". I mean, EATING can be an addiction. Should EATING be considered immoral?

Reading books is an enjoyable past time and can be a learning experience; I hope more people become addicted to that lost pastime.

So then what makes gambling "bad", if not the addiction part? It would sem to me you're just picking and choosing what you'll call "immoral" or not, based on personal taste.

It would appear that you are not well read with the problem of gambling in our society or the history of gambling and why it was outlawed almost everywhere after the Wild West was tamed.

Why, because I disagree, I must not be well-informed? Charming.

Here is a fact, in all Casino games the house has the advantage, which means you will lose all your money eventually.

Yes.

And the problem?

In Blackjack, if you count cards, which is illegal and the casino can throw you out of the casino and ban you, you can have a slight percentage age over the house; but, most casinos have gone to 5 decks or more and reshuffle frequently, which makes card counting almost impossible. Poker is played against other opponents and not the house, but the casinos get a rake off every hand (% of the pot or fixed amount of each pot) and even professional poker players have a difficult maintaining a winning hourly rate, despite all the hype you see on TV and in magazine. Sure, there are maybe 1% who will show a lifetime positive ROI " Return on Investment playing poker, but most recreational players will show a lifetime loss.

Yes, and how of this a problem at all? Are people forced to play these games? No. They choose to engage in them of their own free will. It's their desire, let them do what they like. How does any of this constitute "immorality"?

Most states (32 states, e.g., Alabama, Alaska, Utah, etc.), have banned commercial casinos; but many of those states have had to allows the American Indian Tribes to open Casinos on their Reservation Lands under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988.

Legality is not an arbiter of morality.

Why do you think most states have banned commercial casinos? Well, crime usually goes up around casinos,

How does that make gambling immoral though? Organized crime and gambling are two different things. During the prohibition of alcohol, organized crime saw it's height, but we don't say drinking alcohol is immoral, now do we?

and too many folks become "enthralled" with it because of all the hype about how much you can win, which is a huge lie.

It's not a huge lie. If by some small, minute chance, you do win, you can win a lot. Most people lose, some people win. That's what makes a game a game. Where is the innate harm in that? If someone chooses to pay money to play a game, with the benefit of the possibility they may win money back for winning, where is the harm?

Everyone, but literally a few, lose a lot of money playing at Casinos.

Again, that's how games work. A game necessitates losers.

And, the majority of the people who play at casinos and gamble at racetracks, dog tracks, etc. are people in the lower middle class and poor that can least afford to waste that money gambling when it should be spend on their families.

1) The people who gamble has no bearing the morality of gambling.
2) Irresponsible choices on the part of gamblers does not make gambling immoral.
3) Even if you say that gamblers are pressured into gambling, or deceived into it, that is not a problem with GAMBLING; that is a problem with how we allow people to market gambling.

Gambling is actually a form of regressive tax on the individuals in the local economies.

Pfffft. Gambling is a tax? That's laughable.

It is such a huge money maker for most states that they ignore its evils

You've yet to explain what is intrinsically evil about gambling. What is intrinsically evil about wagering money on a game? What is immoral about betting on a competition?

and damaging effects on the poor and lower middle class; but, they do make some rules that are supposed to help curb the addictive nature of gambling. Most Casinos are not allowed to have ATMs in the gambling area itself. All casinos have brochures on "Responsible Gambling" " not because they are honest moral folks and want to protect the gamblers, but because that is legally required.

Which has nothing to do with gambling itself, but again, the way gambling is marketed.

Here, we are going to look at some of the statistics about gambling addiction.

Except your statistics are meaningless.

It doesn't matter how many people get addicted to something; that doesn't prove it is "immoral" or "wrong" to do that particular thing.

Anyway, I believe commercial gambling should be banned everywhere but Vegas and the Indian Casinos all shut down, unless they are in Vegas.

Why? You haven't proved a single sound justification for banning it, except personal distaste. You have not even attempted to show the "intrinsic evil" of gambling. Your entire post was meaningless.
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 4:12:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:53:55 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
Many people think gays are sick, including Doctors. Most were raped with they were young by older people of the same sex. They need help.

Bullsh*t. That's a wide-spread myth.

So, I am doubting that there are many at this site that believe that marriage is between a man and a woman;

Marriage is whatever we choose to make of it. To bar two people who love one another from being married, simply because they don't have the right set of genitalia, is ridiculous and cruel.

and children, when possible, should be raised by a married couple

Agreed. Double incomes tend to help.

- a man and a woman, never by a gay couple

Gays should not have the right to raise children. Children need to be raised in a heterosexual environment to grow-up normally.

False. The genitalia of the parents have no bearing on whether or not they will grow up to be "normal" (unless by normal, you mean, hating homosexuality).

And, yes, there are bad heterosexual parents, but that does not mean gays are better or should be allowed to raise children.

So you're basically saying letting homosexuals raise children is the worst crime to them imaginable? That loving, doting homosexual parents, would be objectively worse than physically and emotionally abusive heterosexual parents?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 5:29:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yo, GWL-CPA

do you have the portugal study in front of you? (the one you were quoting...not one that I may have entered into the conversation.)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 5:33:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:29:43 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Yo, GWL-CPA

do you have the portugal study in front of you? (the one you were quoting...not one that I may have entered into the conversation.)

http://www.rusfeltet.no...

OK, never mind...I got it for you. Please confirm that this is, in fact, the study that you posted about Portugal ("just one doctor with a vested interest in proving the policy in Portugal worked" were your words that accompanied it, I believe)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 5:46:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:33:59 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:29:43 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Yo, GWL-CPA

do you have the portugal study in front of you? (the one you were quoting...not one that I may have entered into the conversation.)

http://www.rusfeltet.no...

OK, never mind...I got it for you. Please confirm that this is, in fact, the study that you posted about Portugal ("just one doctor with a vested interest in proving the policy in Portugal worked" were your words that accompanied it, I believe)

PAGE 28 - HIV Infection by Population Characteristics

2001 - Users of Intervenes Drugs - 1400
Heterosexual, non-UDI - 1000
Homosexual, non-UDI - 150

2010 - Users of Intervenes Drugs - 150
Heterosexual, non-UDI - 1000
Homosexual, non-UDI - 200

Given that AIDS doesn't kill you any longer (as I'm sure you'd cite this as a positive) and that it's simply REALLY expensive to treat, would you say the numbers above represent a positive or negative outcome?

Please remember:

1. THIS IS THE STUDY THAT YOU USED AND POSTED
2. I AM ONLY ASKING ABOUT THIS ONE THING. I DON'T NEED TO HEAR ABOUT THE MILLION OTHER THINGS YOU WANT TO SAY RIGHT NOW. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:55:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 3:34:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/11/2013 3:22:45 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:59:18 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:53:55 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:00:47 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/10/2013 8:49:45 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:

I don't know what is worse............ calling gay folks normal people who should have the right to get married; or folks demanding the legalization of drugs.

Just letting you know, any credibility you had left at this point is now completely gone.

Many people think gays are sick, including Doctors. Most were raped with they were young by older people of the same sex. They need help.

Many doctors think gay people are sick and most gay people were raped when they were young? Really, brilliant stuff here.

It is brilliant actually; sorry you disagree.

Just for clarification, I don't care what your sexual preference is; just that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is what President Obama did believe before he figured out that it might hurt the Democratic party and vote getting. That makes him two-faced and a liar.

Anyway, thanks for your opinion.

If you have any shred of actual reliable evidence to back up your outrageous claim I'll gladly look at it.
Until you have such evidence, we can go on assuming that most gay people were not raped when they were young

I am a Behaviorist and believe that children who are exposed to same sex experiences (e.g., rape, foundling, masturbating, etc.) at a young age and enjoy it grow up thinking it is normal behavior and have a greater chance of becoming a homosexual as an adult. And, the ones who feel ashamed at their gay feelings never get the help they need to understand why they don't want a heterosexual relationship.

Most rapes and sexual abuse (e.g., rape, foundling, masturbating, etc.) of young boys and girls by adults of the same sex go unreported. So the stats are not that available. Look at the Priests that rape young boys; priests have been raping young boys for hundreds of years. Then there are the boys who do not have a dominate male figure (e.g., boys of single moms) who start dressing up in Mom's clothes and putting on her makeup and heels, and Mom telling him what a good little girl he is; they grow up confused too.

"Rape is one of the most misunderstood crimes - and when the victim is male the misconceptions are even greater. Many legal jurisdictions may not even recognize a crime of rape against a male victim but instead may use terms such as "sodomy" or "child abuse". The rape of males by males is a well-hidden practice due to victims not speaking out against it and the popular belief that "real men cannot be raped". The phrase "homosexual rape" is used to refer to male-male rape, but covers the fact that the majorities of rapists as well as the victims are generally heterosexual. Many studies of sexual abuse have shown that boys and girls, up to the early teen years, have an equal chance of being sexually victimized. Studies indicate a median victim age of 17. "71% of male victims were first raped before their 18th birthday; 16.6% were 18-24 years old; and 12.3% were 25 or older (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006)."
http://www.stlawu.edu...

"The global prevalence of child sexual abuse has been estimated at 19.7% for females and 7.9% for males, according to a 2009 study published in Clinical Psychology Review that examined 65 studies from 22 countries. Using the available data, the highest prevalence rate of child sexual abuse geographically was found in Africa (34.4%), primarily because of high rates in South Africa; Europe showed the lowest prevalence rate (9.2%); America and Asia had prevalence rates between 10.1% and 23.9%. In the past, other research has concluded similarly that in North America, for example, approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children. Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as 'friends' of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases. Most child sexual abuse is committed by men; studies show that women commit 14% to 40% of offenses reported against boys and 6% of offenses reported against girls. Most offenders who sexually abuse prepubescent children are pedophiles, although some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Anyway, you will not find a study whereby a large population of gays were interviewed to see if they were raped or sexually abused by an older member of the same sex when they were kids, be it a relative or not, e.g., clergy, teacher, babysitter. You will most like never see it. And, if they had those experiences and liked the activity; they might not even consider it abnormal. But, you will see nonsense studies that can't be proven that there is a gay gene that causes homosexuality.

Anyway, that is my proof. I don't care if you accept it. My wife does not agree with me either. She loves to watch that gay fashion show; she thinks love is love, even between homosexuals - gay men and gay women.

But, let's make sure you know my position. I don't care what your sexual preference is; but, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman; and gay couples should not be allowed to raise children. Even the state of California voted against gay marriage, which was too funny. And, President Obama supported The Defense of Marriage Act, which is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. Now President Obama has proven how two-faced or duplicitous he really is; just to get more votes for the Democratic Party.

And, for all the gays that think God favors gays, you need to reread the Bible; it is an abomination in the Bible. Even though I am an Atheist; I have read the entire Bible and there are many verses in the Bible that call homosexuality an abomination. I use "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy" by C. Dennis McKinsey as my reference guide to look up subjects in the Bible and reference to verses; here are a few verses on homosexuality:

Old Testament:

Lev. 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13 says, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death."

Some homosexuals claim that since that was only in the Old Testament, that it does not count. Well, here is a great verse from the New Testament:

New Testament:

First Epistle to the Corinthians - 6:9-10 (ML) declares, "Be not misled; neither profligates, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor partakers of homosexuality"will inherit the kingdom of God."
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:03:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 6:55:37 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:

Old Testament:

Lev. 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13 says, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death."


An abomination, in ancient Hebrew, is a dietary restriction.

This is a mistranslation of cannibalism. The Old Testament was translated from 3 separate, distinct Hebrew holy books, and those books only contained consonants, and there was a lot of guesswork around which vowels went where.

This was one of the poor, incorrect guesses.

The other stuff you threw around was added after the fact.

Sodom and Gomorrah were toppled because of a lack of courtesy and hospitality, not a little anal with the angles.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:35:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 4:12:05 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:53:55 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
Many people think gays are sick, including Doctors. Most were raped with they were young by older people of the same sex. They need help.

Bullsh*t. That's a wide-spread myth.

So, I am doubting that there are many at this site that believe that marriage is between a man and a woman;

Marriage is whatever we choose to make of it. To bar two people who love one another from being married, simply because they don't have the right set of genitalia, is ridiculous and cruel.

and children, when possible, should be raised by a married couple

Agreed. Double incomes tend to help.

- a man and a woman, never by a gay couple

Gays should not have the right to raise children. Children need to be raised in a heterosexual environment to grow-up normally.

False. The genitalia of the parents have no bearing on whether or not they will grow up to be "normal" (unless by normal, you mean, hating homosexuality).

And, yes, there are bad heterosexual parents, but that does not mean gays are better or should be allowed to raise children.

So you're basically saying letting homosexuals raise children is the worst crime to them imaginable? That loving, doting homosexual parents, would be objectively worse than physically and emotionally abusive heterosexual parents?

No, I am against abusive parents; those kids should be put in heterosexual homes.

And, I never said it was a crime; just that it should not be allowed. You want to raise a kid, get married to someone of the opposite sex and have one, or if a heterosexual can't have children, adopt one.

I can see that we will once again have to agree to disagree.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:43:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 4:07:58 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 2/11/2013 12:51:09 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/11/2013 10:43:40 AM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 2/11/2013 8:14:46 AM, GWL-CPA wrote:
They are bad for society and mainly destroy the poor and lower middle class who can afford it the least.

In other words...it's a potentially addictive behavior that is only bad when one who has poor self-control becomes enthralled with it. Which can be said about...pretty much everything in life.

No, that is not what I said.

No, you didn't say it exactly, but I'm not seeing where else you are going with this. What makes it "bad", other than it has the potential to become an addiction?

And, there are plenty of things in life that are not addictive, although anything can become addictive to someone who suffers from an addictive personality.

...exactly. So how then can you say there are things which are not "addictive"? All addiction is is becoming enthralled with something to an extreme. As anyone can find pleasure in anything, anything has the potential to become an addiction to someone.

So I'm still not seeing why that is, alone, grounds to call something "immoral". I mean, EATING can be an addiction. Should EATING be considered immoral?

Reading books is an enjoyable past time and can be a learning experience; I hope more people become addicted to that lost pastime.

So then what makes gambling "bad", if not the addiction part? It would sem to me you're just picking and choosing what you'll call "immoral" or not, based on personal taste.

It would appear that you are not well read with the problem of gambling in our society or the history of gambling and why it was outlawed almost everywhere after the Wild West was tamed.

Why, because I disagree, I must not be well-informed? Charming.


Here is a fact, in all Casino games the house has the advantage, which means you will lose all your money eventually.

Yes.

And the problem?

In Blackjack, if you count cards, which is illegal and the casino can throw you out of the casino and ban you, you can have a slight percentage age over the house; but, most casinos have gone to 5 decks or more and reshuffle frequently, which makes card counting almost impossible. Poker is played against other opponents and not the house, but the casinos get a rake off every hand (% of the pot or fixed amount of each pot) and even professional poker players have a difficult maintaining a winning hourly rate, despite all the hype you see on TV and in magazine. Sure, there are maybe 1% who will show a lifetime positive ROI " Return on Investment playing poker, but most recreational players will show a lifetime loss.

Yes, and how of this a problem at all? Are people forced to play these games? No. They choose to engage in them of their own free will. It's their desire, let them do what they like. How does any of this constitute "immorality"?


Most states (32 states, e.g., Alabama, Alaska, Utah, etc.), have banned commercial casinos; but many of those states have had to allows the American Indian Tribes to open Casinos on their Reservation Lands under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988.

Legality is not an arbiter of morality.

Why do you think most states have banned commercial casinos? Well, crime usually goes up around casinos,

How does that make gambling immoral though? Organized crime and gambling are two different things. During the prohibition of alcohol, organized crime saw it's height, but we don't say drinking alcohol is immoral, now do we?

and too many folks become "enthralled" with it because of all the hype about how much you can win, which is a huge lie.

It's not a huge lie. If by some small, minute chance, you do win, you can win a lot. Most people lose, some people win. That's what makes a game a game. Where is the innate harm in that? If someone chooses to pay money to play a game, with the benefit of the possibility they may win money back for winning, where is the harm?

Everyone, but literally a few, lose a lot of money playing at Casinos.

Again, that's how games work. A game necessitates losers.

And, the majority of the people who play at casinos and gamble at racetracks, dog tracks, etc. are people in the lower middle class and poor that can least afford to waste that money gambling when it should be spend on their families.

1) The people who gamble has no bearing the morality of gambling.
2) Irresponsible choices on the part of gamblers does not make gambling immoral.
3) Even if you say that gamblers are pressured into gambling, or deceived into it, that is not a problem with GAMBLING; that is a problem with how we allow people to market gambling.

Gambling is actually a form of regressive tax on the individuals in the local economies.


Pfffft. Gambling is a tax? That's laughable.

It is such a huge money maker for most states that they ignore its evils

You've yet to explain what is intrinsically evil about gambling. What is intrinsically evil about wagering money on a game? What is immoral about betting on a competition?

and damaging effects on the poor and lower middle class; but, they do make some rules that are supposed to help curb the addictive nature of gambling. Most Casinos are not allowed to have ATMs in the gambling area itself. All casinos have brochures on "Responsible Gambling" " not because they are honest moral folks and want to protect the gamblers, but because that is legally required.

Which has nothing to do with gambling itself, but again, the way gambling is marketed.

Here, we are going to look at some of the statistics about gambling addiction.

Except your statistics are meaningless.

It doesn't matter how many people get addicted to something; that doesn't prove it is "immoral" or "wrong" to do that particular thing.

Anyway, I believe commercial gambling should be banned everywhere but Vegas and the Indian Casinos all shut down, unless they are in Vegas.

Why? You haven't proved a single sound justification for banning it, except personal distaste. You have not even attempted to show the "intrinsic evil" of gambling. Your entire post was meaningless.

It is a huge problem in our society. But, the states instead of trying to solve the problem are making it more available just because they want the tax revenue.

Anyway, sorry you don't see it as a problem. We will have to agree to disagree once again.

By the way, I am a poker player and have studied the game of Texas Hole'em for years and actually win money, both online and at the Casinos. I have a small positive lifetime ROI, at least as of today. That being said, I still believe it is too harmful to society and should be very limited. You would hate to live in Utah or Hawaii, where it is totally illegal; and it is very limited in in many of the Bible belt states.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
Raisor
Posts: 5,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 8:24:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:44:57 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/10/2013 5:45:52 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/10/2013 5:02:53 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
Part II.

And, do a few stoners get good grades and go on to college? Of Course! There are exceptions to the majority who do not.


My high school had a 100% college advancement rate (white suburban kids represent), despite wide spread use of marijuana.

Probably about half the people I knew in college smoked weed or at least tried it. Some of the people who smoked were and are very successful, some werent.

When I hear you talk about marijuana and alcohol it just sounds like someone totally detached from the culture in which it is used. The things you say bear very little resemblance to my experience around the drug

I don't deny that people abuse marijuana or that it is probably much healthier to totally abstain from using it, just that your portrayal of it sounds like reefer madness with no bearing on the facts on the ground.

Reefer madness, such nonsense, is that the best you have?

First off, the only person who is apparently detached from our culture is you, no offense meant. Living in a college university town full of stoners and working at a University full of stoners is not reality.

The population of Urbana, IL was 41,250 and Champaign was 81,055 or 122,305 for both cities per 2010 Census. The population of students at University of IL, Urbana-Champaign was 32,256 undergraduate and 10,673 graduate students for a total 42,929. So the university population equals 35% of the total population of both cites; and the top employer in that area is the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with 10,900 employees. So who is detached from reality?

Do you remember the idiomatic expression about people who live in ivory towers; it applies to you.

Wow, since you are a TA at the University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, I am assuming you went to a high school in IL. A 100% college advancement rate is mighty impressive, even amongst white folks. Is that your opinion that is based on a few friends, or have you looked at your high school's statistics and can prove your wild claim? I am guessing you have not looked at your high school's actual percentages of those who attended in total and how many went to college.

Now, if you are a wealthy white person who lived in a wealthy predominately white community, where the median home price was $1 million, and were born with that proverbial silver spoon in your mouth and both your parents were college graduates, yes, then the percentages do approach 100%. People born into the wealthy class who get all the advantages in life often do go on to college. Since you appear to be a full time student going for his Ph.D. you might just be one of those folks, your high school friends too.

Yes! There are a few very successful people who have smoked dope; I am betting that most were not daily users and heavy duty stoners. But, even then, a few of them might be successful. But, the overwhelming majority doesn't succeed. Most kids that start smoking dope in grade or high school and smoke a lot (e.g., daily or most of the week) do poorly in school and do not go to college.

I am glad somewhat agree with me "I don't deny that people abuse marijuana or that it is probably much healthier to totally abstain from using it...."

That 100% stat is accurate for my graduate class. I had a graduating class of about 100 so I could probably name the schools where everyone went. You may or may not be surprised how many "stoners" made it into top tier schools.

I am not a TA at Illinois (never was actually), I currently am what many people would call a "young urban professional." You know nothing about me yet feel comfortable in judging me.

I agree with you that it is hard to succeed if you are smoking marijuana everyday. Its a timesuck of about 2-4 hours, if you are spending that much time everyday on a non-productive activity it will be difficult to do well in school. Most people I know who smoke do it at most once a week. One of my best friends used to be a "stoner" who smoked everyday but as academics and extracurriculars became more time consuming he lost the time for it and now barely smokes at all.

I am nearly convinced you are a troll at this point. You see anyone with any experience with marijuana and anyone who disagrees with you as a "stoner." Your tone and constant personal attacks seem aimed more at inciting rage than actually convincing others or contributing to constructive discourse.

Until you start behaving in a civil and respectful fashion I will not be interacting with you. I suggest the rest of DDO do the same.
We gonna pull up like the ice cream truck
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 8:39:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 7:03:31 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/11/2013 6:55:37 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:

Old Testament:

Lev. 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13 says, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death."


An abomination, in ancient Hebrew, is a dietary restriction.

This is a mistranslation of cannibalism. The Old Testament was translated from 3 separate, distinct Hebrew holy books, and those books only contained consonants, and there was a lot of guesswork around which vowels went where.

This was one of the poor, incorrect guesses.

The other stuff you threw around was added after the fact.

Sodom and Gomorrah were toppled because of a lack of courtesy and hospitality, not a little anal with the angles.

You are very wrong on that: Please site your sources for your stuff.

The passage which has caused so much pain to gay people through the centuries is Leviticus 18:22 "Man should not lie with a man,as one does with a woman,it is an abomination". Other things in Leviticus were also abominations, for instance, boiling a calf in it's mother's milk, which was what lead to all of the kasruth laws (Kosher), not mixing different fabrics (cotton and wool) into a garment, and several more.>
Source(s):
http://answers.yahoo.com...
http://judaism.about.com...

And, you forgot the New Testament verse that was written in Greek.
The presumed references to 'homosexuality' in the NT hinge on the interpretation of three specific Greek words, arsenokoit & malakos, and porneia.[1][2] For example, according to the English Standard Version (ESV), the words translated by the phrase "men who practice homosexuality" (in 1 Corinthians 6:9"10), refer to the "passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts".[3] While it is not disputed that the two Greek words concern sexual relations between men (and possibly between women) some academics interpret the relevant passages as a prohibition against pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, but other scholars have presented counter arguments.[4][5][6] The historical context has also been a subject of debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Romans 1:26-27

Saint Paul writing his Epistles
In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (English Majority Text Version, EMTV), Paul writes
"For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error."
This has been described by Hilborn as "the most important biblical reference for the homosexuality debate".[7] It is also the only apparent reference in the Bible to female homosexuality, though some maintain that this prohibition applies only to male homosexuals.[1] Hilborn (op cit) argues that in the wider passage (Romans 1:18-32) Paul writes that the "global scope of salvation history has been made manifest not only in "the gospel of God's Son" (cf. v.9), but also in the very "creation of the world" (v.20)." In common with many traditional commentators, Hilborn (op cit) goes on to argue that condemnation of homosexual activity is derived from the "broad contours" of Paul's argument, in addition to the selective reading of individual words or phrases.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Is that good enough for you? Probably not.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 9:35:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:46:18 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:33:59 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:29:43 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Yo, GWL-CPA

do you have the portugal study in front of you? (the one you were quoting...not one that I may have entered into the conversation.)

http://www.rusfeltet.no...

OK, never mind...I got it for you. Please confirm that this is, in fact, the study that you posted about Portugal ("just one doctor with a vested interest in proving the policy in Portugal worked" were your words that accompanied it, I believe)

PAGE 28 - HIV Infection by Population Characteristics

2001 - Users of Intervenes Drugs - 1400
Heterosexual, non-UDI - 1000
Homosexual, non-UDI - 150

2010 - Users of Intervenes Drugs - 150
Heterosexual, non-UDI - 1000
Homosexual, non-UDI - 200

Given that AIDS doesn't kill you any longer (as I'm sure you'd cite this as a positive) and that it's simply REALLY expensive to treat, would you say the numbers above represent a positive or negative outcome?

Please remember:

1. THIS IS THE STUDY THAT YOU USED AND POSTED
2. I AM ONLY ASKING ABOUT THIS ONE THING. I DON'T NEED TO HEAR ABOUT THE MILLION OTHER THINGS YOU WANT TO SAY RIGHT NOW. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Actually, that is the study that I said is wrong and misleading. And, if you read the "Trends" that doctor talks about, he states that drug use is up for adults and more drugs are being confiscated by the police. You need to look at everything in that Doctors charts and see if you can understand the stats. Then read the following study.

The study I said presented the real facts was:

Decriminalization of drugs in Portugal " The real facts!
http://www.braha.com.br...

There is another study that disputes the study you are referencing.

"Portugal faces a worrying deterioration of the drug situation. The facts prove "With 219 deaths from 'overdose' per year, Portugal has one of the worst results, with one death every two days. Along with Greece, Austria and Finland, Portugal registered an increase of deaths by more than 30% in 2005 " and " Portugal remains the country with the highest increase of AIDS as a result of injecting drugs (85 new cases per million residents in 2005, when the majority of countries do not surpass 5 cases per million). Portugal is the only country that recorded a recent increase, with 36 new cases estimated per million in 2005 when in 2004 only 30 were registered" (European Observatory for Drugs and Drug Addiction 2007). The European report also confirmed that in 2006, Portugal had registered 703 new cases of SIDA, which corresponds to a rate eight times higher than the European average!

The decriminalization of drugs in Portugal did not in any way decrease levels of consumption. On the contrary, "the consumption of drugs in Portugal increased by 4.2% - the percentage of people who have experimented with drugs at least once in their lifetime increased from 7.8% in 2001 to 12% in 2007 (IDT-Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction Portuguese, 2008)."
http://www.wfad.se...

Anyway, if you don't believe the truth I have presented about Portugal, we will have to agree to disagree; I am now tired of repeated this to you.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 9:53:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 8:24:30 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:44:57 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/10/2013 5:45:52 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/10/2013 5:02:53 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
Part II.

And, do a few stoners get good grades and go on to college? Of Course! There are exceptions to the majority who do not.


My high school had a 100% college advancement rate (white suburban kids represent), despite wide spread use of marijuana.

Probably about half the people I knew in college smoked weed or at least tried it. Some of the people who smoked were and are very successful, some werent.

When I hear you talk about marijuana and alcohol it just sounds like someone totally detached from the culture in which it is used. The things you say bear very little resemblance to my experience around the drug

I don't deny that people abuse marijuana or that it is probably much healthier to totally abstain from using it, just that your portrayal of it sounds like reefer madness with no bearing on the facts on the ground.

Reefer madness, such nonsense, is that the best you have?

First off, the only person who is apparently detached from our culture is you, no offense meant. Living in a college university town full of stoners and working at a University full of stoners is not reality.

The population of Urbana, IL was 41,250 and Champaign was 81,055 or 122,305 for both cities per 2010 Census. The population of students at University of IL, Urbana-Champaign was 32,256 undergraduate and 10,673 graduate students for a total 42,929. So the university population equals 35% of the total population of both cites; and the top employer in that area is the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with 10,900 employees. So who is detached from reality?

Do you remember the idiomatic expression about people who live in ivory towers; it applies to you.

Wow, since you are a TA at the University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, I am assuming you went to a high school in IL. A 100% college advancement rate is mighty impressive, even amongst white folks. Is that your opinion that is based on a few friends, or have you looked at your high school's statistics and can prove your wild claim? I am guessing you have not looked at your high school's actual percentages of those who attended in total and how many went to college.

Now, if you are a wealthy white person who lived in a wealthy predominately white community, where the median home price was $1 million, and were born with that proverbial silver spoon in your mouth and both your parents were college graduates, yes, then the percentages do approach 100%. People born into the wealthy class who get all the advantages in life often do go on to college. Since you appear to be a full time student going for his Ph.D. you might just be one of those folks, your high school friends too.

Yes! There are a few very successful people who have smoked dope; I am betting that most were not daily users and heavy duty stoners. But, even then, a few of them might be successful. But, the overwhelming majority doesn't succeed. Most kids that start smoking dope in grade or high school and smoke a lot (e.g., daily or most of the week) do poorly in school and do not go to college.

I am glad somewhat agree with me "I don't deny that people abuse marijuana or that it is probably much healthier to totally abstain from using it...."

That 100% stat is accurate for my graduate class. I had a graduating class of about 100 so I could probably name the schools where everyone went. You may or may not be surprised how many "stoners" made it into top tier schools.

I am not a TA at Illinois (never was actually), I currently am what many people would call a "young urban professional." You know nothing about me yet feel comfortable in judging me.

I agree with you that it is hard to succeed if you are smoking marijuana everyday. Its a timesuck of about 2-4 hours, if you are spending that much time everyday on a non-productive activity it will be difficult to do well in school. Most people I know who smoke do it at most once a week. One of my best friends used to be a "stoner" who smoked everyday but as academics and extracurriculars became more time consuming he lost the time for it and now barely smokes at all.

I am nearly convinced you are a troll at this point. You see anyone with any experience with marijuana and anyone who disagrees with you as a "stoner." Your tone and constant personal attacks seem aimed more at inciting rage than actually convincing others or contributing to constructive discourse.

Until you start behaving in a civil and respectful fashion I will not be interacting with you. I suggest the rest of DDO do the same.

Sorry, on your profile someone states you are at TA with a fellowship. And, I have behave in a much more respectful fashion that others. And, if 100% of your fellow students in a school of 100 went to college, that is amazing. Again, I suspect you are from a wealthy family where both parents went to college. And, your results are not indicative of most of American, so they are not relevant; so why did you bring them up?

And, now you are a urban professional when your profile says you are a student. Maybe, you just haven't had time to update it. And, it says you live in Urbana, IL.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 10:05:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 8:39:16 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/11/2013 7:03:31 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/11/2013 6:55:37 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:

Old Testament:

Lev. 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13 says, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death."


An abomination, in ancient Hebrew, is a dietary restriction.

This is a mistranslation of cannibalism. The Old Testament was translated from 3 separate, distinct Hebrew holy books, and those books only contained consonants, and there was a lot of guesswork around which vowels went where.

This was one of the poor, incorrect guesses.

The other stuff you threw around was added after the fact.

Sodom and Gomorrah were toppled because of a lack of courtesy and hospitality, not a little anal with the angles.

You are very wrong on that: Please site your sources for your stuff.

The passage which has caused so much pain to gay people through the centuries is Leviticus 18:22 "Man should not lie with a man,as one does with a woman,it is an abomination". Other things in Leviticus were also abominations, for instance, boiling a calf in it's mother's milk, which was what lead to all of the kasruth laws (Kosher), not mixing different fabrics (cotton and wool) into a garment, and several more.>
Source(s):
http://answers.yahoo.com...
http://judaism.about.com...

And, you forgot the New Testament verse that was written in Greek.
The presumed references to 'homosexuality' in the NT hinge on the interpretation of three specific Greek words, arsenokoit & malakos, and porneia.[1][2] For example, according to the English Standard Version (ESV), the words translated by the phrase "men who practice homosexuality" (in 1 Corinthians 6:9"10), refer to the "passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts".[3] While it is not disputed that the two Greek words concern sexual relations between men (and possibly between women) some academics interpret the relevant passages as a prohibition against pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, but other scholars have presented counter arguments.[4][5][6] The historical context has also been a subject of debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Romans 1:26-27

Saint Paul writing his Epistles
In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (English Majority Text Version, EMTV), Paul writes
"For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error."
This has been described by Hilborn as "the most important biblical reference for the homosexuality debate".[7] It is also the only apparent reference in the Bible to female homosexuality, though some maintain that this prohibition applies only to male homosexuals.[1] Hilborn (op cit) argues that in the wider passage (Romans 1:18-32) Paul writes that the "global scope of salvation history has been made manifest not only in "the gospel of God's Son" (cf. v.9), but also in the very "creation of the world" (v.20)." In common with many traditional commentators, Hilborn (op cit) goes on to argue that condemnation of homosexual activity is derived from the "broad contours" of Paul's argument, in addition to the selective reading of individual words or phrases.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Is that good enough for you? Probably not.

Well, since Greeks made no distinction between loving men and loving women (they had no word for homosexuality, only sexuality - eros), no, it's not good enough for me.

Boiling meat is dietary, and fabric mixing is akin to diet (ie what one does to an animal before one puts it in or upon ones body). The "men not lying with men" law is an outlier and there is no other law in Leviticus, labeled as an abomination, which are anything remotely close to it in substance. It's an anomaly amidst a sea of obvious.

That, and Paul was a douchebag, as well as the fact that Epistles are letters, and I have no idea how one can claim that a letter, at times not even solely written by Paul, from one/two people to another person could be the word of God.

If so, then this is the word of God.

Glory be to me.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 10:20:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 6:55:37 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
I am a Behaviorist and believe that children who are exposed to same sex experiences (e.g., rape, foundling, masturbating, etc.) at a young age and enjoy it grow up thinking it is normal behavior and have a greater chance of becoming a homosexual as an adult.

1) This is unfounded. There is no sound evidence for this.
2) So what? Who cares if someone becomes homosexual?

And, the ones who feel ashamed at their gay feelings never get the help they need to understand why they don't want a heterosexual relationship.

People only ever feel ashamed of being homosexual, because people like YOU tell them they should feel ashamed. Stop demonizing homosexuality, and, gasp, people will stop feeling ashamed about it!

Most rapes and sexual abuse (e.g., rape, foundling, masturbating, etc.) of young boys and girls by adults of the same sex go unreported. So the stats are not that available. Look at the Priests that rape young boys; priests have been raping young boys for hundreds of years.

I fail to see what this has to do with homosexuality.

Then there are the boys who do not have a dominate male figure (e.g., boys of single moms) who start dressing up in Mom's clothes and putting on her makeup and heels, and Mom telling him what a good little girl he is; they grow up confused too.

Only becomes we live in such a sexually restricted society; why should boys wearing "girls" clothing be something bad? It's just cloth.

Anyway, you will not find a study whereby a large population of gays were interviewed to see if they were raped or sexually abused by an older member of the same sex when they were kids, be it a relative or not, e.g., clergy, teacher, babysitter. You will most like never see it. And, if they had those experiences and liked the activity; they might not even consider it abnormal. But, you will see nonsense studies that can't be proven that there is a gay gene that causes homosexuality.

They aren't nonsense studies; even if they do not prove the existence of a "gay gene", there is no sound reason to think it is the result of how one was raised, nor that it is a choice. Ergo, we default to biology, because it is the only sound conclusion based on the current (lack of) evidence.

Anyway, that is my proof. I don't care if you accept it. My wife does not agree with me either. She loves to watch that gay fashion show; she thinks love is love, even between homosexuals - gay men and gay women.

But, let's make sure you know my position. I don't care what your sexual preference is; but, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman;

Why? Why should it not be between people who love one another?

and gay couples should not be allowed to raise children.

Why? There is no harm in it. You say you don't hate gays, but then you say they aren't fit to raise children, because those children might become gay too. So...yeah. You do hate gays, and you do care what people's sexual preferences are.

Even the state of California voted against gay marriage, which was too funny. And, President Obama supported The Defense of Marriage Act, which is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. Now President Obama has proven how two-faced or duplicitous he really is; just to get more votes for the Democratic Party.

That's a problem with Obama, not homosexuality.
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 10:22:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 7:35:04 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
No, I am against abusive parents; those kids should be put in heterosexual homes.

Why? You have yet to explain on what grounds homosexual parents are inferior to heterosexual parents, except for your notion that they may grow up to be homosexual too.

So why? Why should homosexuals not be allowed to raise children?

And, I never said it was a crime; just that it should not be allowed.

That would make it a crime.

You want to raise a kid, get married to someone of the opposite sex and have one, or if a heterosexual can't have children, adopt one.

I can see that we will once again have to agree to disagree.

Or you could, you know, actually defend your position, instead of trying to run away when it's shown to be pathetically flawed.
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 10:25:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 7:43:08 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
It is a huge problem in our society. But, the states instead of trying to solve the problem are making it more available just because they want the tax revenue.

What does that even mean? "It's a huge problem in society". You toss that round, but its completely nonsensical. It doesn't mean anything. Not unless you explain WHY it is a problem. Simply labeling it a problem is meaningless.

Anyway, sorry you don't see it as a problem. We will have to agree to disagree once again.

I love how you back down immediately under the guise of "we have to agree to disagree".

When you back down immediately, everyone knows it means you have nothing valid to say in response. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just regurgitating nonsense you heard on Fox News.

By the way, I am a poker player and have studied the game of Texas Hole'em for years and actually win money, both online and at the Casinos. I have a small positive lifetime ROI, at least as of today. That being said, I still believe it is too harmful to society and should be very limited. You would hate to live in Utah or Hawaii, where it is totally illegal; and it is very limited in in many of the Bible belt states.

1) You have no idea what I would like and dislike.
2) Your personal anecdote about yourself doesn't have any suport for your argument.
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:10:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 10:20:22 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 2/11/2013 6:55:37 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
I am a Behaviorist and believe that children who are exposed to same sex experiences (e.g., rape, foundling, masturbating, etc.) at a young age and enjoy it grow up thinking it is normal behavior and have a greater chance of becoming a homosexual as an adult.

1) This is unfounded. There is no sound evidence for this.
2) So what? Who cares if someone becomes homosexual?

And, the ones who feel ashamed at their gay feelings never get the help they need to understand why they don't want a heterosexual relationship.

People only ever feel ashamed of being homosexual, because people like YOU tell them they should feel ashamed. Stop demonizing homosexuality, and, gasp, people will stop feeling ashamed about it!

Most rapes and sexual abuse (e.g., rape, foundling, masturbating, etc.) of young boys and girls by adults of the same sex go unreported. So the stats are not that available. Look at the Priests that rape young boys; priests have been raping young boys for hundreds of years.

I fail to see what this has to do with homosexuality.

Then there are the boys who do not have a dominate male figure (e.g., boys of single moms) who start dressing up in Mom's clothes and putting on her makeup and heels, and Mom telling him what a good little girl he is; they grow up confused too.

Only becomes we live in such a sexually restricted society; why should boys wearing "girls" clothing be something bad? It's just cloth.


Anyway, you will not find a study whereby a large population of gays were interviewed to see if they were raped or sexually abused by an older member of the same sex when they were kids, be it a relative or not, e.g., clergy, teacher, babysitter. You will most like never see it. And, if they had those experiences and liked the activity; they might not even consider it abnormal. But, you will see nonsense studies that can't be proven that there is a gay gene that causes homosexuality.

They aren't nonsense studies; even if they do not prove the existence of a "gay gene", there is no sound reason to think it is the result of how one was raised, nor that it is a choice. Ergo, we default to biology, because it is the only sound conclusion based on the current (lack of) evidence.

Anyway, that is my proof. I don't care if you accept it. My wife does not agree with me either. She loves to watch that gay fashion show; she thinks love is love, even between homosexuals - gay men and gay women.

But, let's make sure you know my position. I don't care what your sexual preference is; but, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman;

Why? Why should it not be between people who love one another?

and gay couples should not be allowed to raise children.

Why? There is no harm in it. You say you don't hate gays, but then you say they aren't fit to raise children, because those children might become gay too. So...yeah. You do hate gays, and you do care what people's sexual preferences are.

Even the state of California voted against gay marriage, which was too funny. And, President Obama supported The Defense of Marriage Act, which is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. Now President Obama has proven how two-faced or duplicitous he really is; just to get more votes for the Democratic Party.

That's a problem with Obama, not homosexuality.

I am sorry you do not agree with me; you are entitled to your own opinion.

You have presented no proof for you position on anything yet. So I am tired of your nonsense.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 4:22:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 8:24:30 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:44:57 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/10/2013 5:45:52 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/10/2013 5:02:53 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
Part II.

And, do a few stoners get good grades and go on to college? Of Course! There are exceptions to the majority who do not.


My high school had a 100% college advancement rate (white suburban kids represent), despite wide spread use of marijuana.

Probably about half the people I knew in college smoked weed or at least tried it. Some of the people who smoked were and are very successful, some werent.

When I hear you talk about marijuana and alcohol it just sounds like someone totally detached from the culture in which it is used. The things you say bear very little resemblance to my experience around the drug

I don't deny that people abuse marijuana or that it is probably much healthier to totally abstain from using it, just that your portrayal of it sounds like reefer madness with no bearing on the facts on the ground.

Reefer madness, such nonsense, is that the best you have?


Do you remember the idiomatic expression about people who live in ivory towers; it applies to you.


I am not a TA at Illinois (never was actually), I currently am what many people would call a "young urban professional." You know nothing about me yet feel comfortable in judging me.


I don't know what to believe coming out of your mouth sir. Are you an inveterate liar or just forgetful? Your profile has:

Raisor " 23 year old male in Urbana, IL

Occupation: Student

This was posted to your site by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago:

"Being a TA is something i'm considering doing. How do you get a fellowship? Do you just apply to various schools or do you need to know someone in order to get a fellowship? Like free tuition in exchange for being a TA or something like that. A lot of TAs at my University were international students so I don't see how they could have know the professors though. I already graduated this summer so I am not in touch with anyone from my University."

"Hey, I wanted to ask you, what year are you right now? Are you a graduate student? I'm thinking about going to Grad school in Mechanical Engineering though I can't decide what specifically to choose?"

"Your profile says you joined three years ago. How is it that I never saw you do anything until very recently? Did you take a break from DDO?"

Anyway, do you still live in Urbana and are you still a TA at the University of Illinois; and, were you born with the proverbial silver spoon in your mouth. You apparently went to a wealthy high school if 100% of your fellow students all went to college, even the ones who smoke pot.

And, reading the debate "Corporate CEOs IN America Should be Paid Less" where you took the con position.

You believe CEOs deserve their pay, which is total BS. I worked for those snobs and sat in the same conference rooms and listened to their nonsense about how they would increase EPS - Earning Per Share and increase their pay by screwing those below the glass ceiling, which has nothing to with Globalization. It is all about GREED! The new God in Corporate America is EPS and increased stock market prices. The corporate CEOs are all members of the Plutocracy and they are all greed idolaters and their GOD is EPS.

The entire pay system in the USA has been designed to support the Plutocracy and is a sham; all corporations should be employee owned, Wall Street should be closed, the stock market shut down. All outsourced jobs should be brought back to America.

Labor is what counts, not increasing EPS so trillions in dividends can be paid to the Plutocracy, where the top 20% own 93% of all wealth, which is mainly concentrated in the top 1%. Those above the glass ceiling are paid Billions in exorbitant salaries and billions in egregious bonuses annually, while labor is paid relatively nothing. It is the workers below the glass ceiling that make corporations possible and make the entire US economy possible - the 99% deserve most of the wealth.

And, labor will take back America and destroy the Plutocracy and redistribute all their wealth, which they earned by not paying the working class a decent wage and sharing in the profits; and getting huge grants from the government, which is also run by the corrupt wealthy elite. The whole system is broken and needs to be overthrown!

America needs to be taken back by the labor party. Abraham Lincoln knew the importance of labor. Many of our founding fathers knew how corrupt corporations were even 300 years ago.

President Abraham Lincoln, the Illinois Rail-Splitter, told his audiences that,

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much higher consideration." 1861

In 1864 Lincoln cautioned a workingmen"s association against the "effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above labor, in the structure of the government" and he warned working people "to beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered, will surely close the door of advancement against such as they""

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed."

President Andrew Johnson warned in 1869, "an aristocracy based on near two billion and a half of national securities has arisen in the Northern states to assume that political control which the consolidation of great financial and political interests formerly gave to the slave oligarchy. The war of finance is the next war we have to fight." Four years later Mark Twain coined his famous term, the Gilded Age.

"What is the chief end of man?--to get rich. In what way?--dishonestly if we can; honestly if we must."
-- Mark Twain-1871

America needs to have a revolution like in Cuba, where the wealthy got what they deserved - kicked out of Cuba. The wealthy need to come off their high-horses and join the labor movement or be kicked out of America.

We will win, all the workers in America must join together in solidarity and strike and protest, and fight if necessary to take back America and kick the Plutocracy out for good!
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 4:36:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/11/2013 10:25:11 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 2/11/2013 7:43:08 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
It is a huge problem in our society. But, the states instead of trying to solve the problem are making it more available just because they want the tax revenue.

What does that even mean? "It's a huge problem in society". You toss that round, but its completely nonsensical. It doesn't mean anything. Not unless you explain WHY it is a problem. Simply labeling it a problem is meaningless.

Anyway, sorry you don't see it as a problem. We will have to agree to disagree once again.

I love how you back down immediately under the guise of "we have to agree to disagree".

When you back down immediately, everyone knows it means you have nothing valid to say in response. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just regurgitating nonsense you heard on Fox News.


By the way, I am a poker player and have studied the game of Texas Hole'em for years and actually win money, both online and at the Casinos. I have a small positive lifetime ROI, at least as of today. That being said, I still believe it is too harmful to society and should be very limited. You would hate to live in Utah or Hawaii, where it is totally illegal; and it is very limited in in many of the Bible belt states.

1) You have no idea what I would like and dislike.
2) Your personal anecdote about yourself doesn't have any suport for your argument.

You must not read well; I am not backing down from anything. I have presented by proof; if you disagree; so be it. Jesus lady, you are a piece of work!
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 4:58:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/3/2013 7:38:54 PM, drafterman wrote:
http://24.media.tumblr.com...

Do you ever say anything original or just quote movies?

From: Men Black " 1997 Movie

Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

From: Captain America The First Avenger

"If you have something to say, right now is the perfect time to keep it to yourself."

Col. Phillips tells Agent Carter to keep her mouth shut after he has an argument with Captain America.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 6:17:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/4/2013 12:41:00 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/3/2013 8:17:44 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:

Actually, Clean and Sober are how life was meant to be lived - too bad you are addicted to drugs. You need to seek therapy.

Well, that escalated quickly..... Also it isnt set in stone that clean and sober IS how life was meant to be lived, thats primarily your own opinion.

"Portugal faces a worrying deterioration of the drug situation. The facts prove "With 219 deaths from "overdose" per year, Portugal has one of the worst results, with one death every two days. Along with Greece, Austria and Finland, Portugal registered an increase of deaths by more than 30% in 2005 " and " Portugal remains the country with the highest increase of AIDS as a result of injecting drugs (85 new cases per million residents in 2005, when the majority of countries do not surpass 5 cases per million). Portugal is the only country that recorded a recent increase, with 36 new cases estimated per million in 2005 when in 2004 only 30 were registered" (European Observatory for Drugs and Drug Addiction 2007). The European report also confirmed that in 2006, Portugal had registered 703 new cases of SIDA, which corresponds to a rate eight times higher than the European average!"

Europeans are a filthy people though, have you ever seen a British person's teeth or smelled a french person?

"The decriminalization of drugs in Portugal did not in any way decrease levels of consumption. On the contrary, "the consumption of drugs in Portugal increased by 4.2% " the percentage of people who have experimented with drugs at least once in their lifetime increased from 7.8% in 2001 to 12% in 2007 (IDT-Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction Portuguese, 2008)."

Less then 15% trying drugs at least once in their life =/= almost 15% are now pothead hippies.... So these stats dont concern me too much

"With regard to the consumption of cocaine "the latest data (surveys from 2005-2007) confirms the increasing trend during the last year in France, Ireland, Spain, The United Kingdom, Italy, Denmark and Portugal" (EMCDDA 2008). While rates of use of cocaine and amphetamine doubled in Portugal, seizures of cocaine have increased sevenfold between 2001 and 2006, the sixth highest in the world (WDR-World Drug Report, 2009)."

Whoa whoa wait a sec, I thought we were talking about Marijuana.

"With regard to hashish, it is difficult to assess the trends and intensive use of hashish in Europe, but among the countries that participated in field trials, between 2004 and 2007 (France, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands and Portugal) there was an average increase of approximately 20% " (EMCDDA, 2008)."

"In Portugal, since decriminalization has been implemented, the number of homicides related to drugs has increased 40%. "It was the only European country with a significant increase in (drug-related) murders between 2001 and 2006″ (WDR, 2009)."

"A recent report commissioned by IDT, the Center for Studies and Opinion Polls (CESOP) of the Portuguese Catholic University, based on direct interviews regarding the attitudes of the Portuguese towards drug addiction (which has strangely never been released), revealed the following: 83.7% of respondents indicated that the number of drug users in Portugal has increased in the last four years. 66.8% believe that the accessibility of drugs in their neighborhoods was easy or very easy and 77.3% stated that crime related to drugs has also increased ("Toxicodepend"ncias" No. 3, 2007)."

If its a Catholic university then i'm immediately skeptical of how reliable any information they give towards drug usage is. Catholic institutions are notorious for trying to fudge numbers to have their way....

"This is the painful reality in Portugal " the attitude towards drugs and drug addiction. For the Portuguese government, drug addicts are essentially regarded as "sick". This is not only a suicidal attitude, but a public expense. Pretend you are sick and the government pretends to treat you! The decriminalization of consumption, possession and acquisition for consumption has added to the illicit consumption of drugs. Legalizing a crime committed by "drug addicts" (or "the sick") does not seem the most effective way to combat the problem, as shown by greatly increased rate of drug-related homicides recorded in Portugal compared to other countries with reduced dependence and related crime."

"What is happening in Portugal is very peculiar; drug addicts, with the support of the government, rely on their status as "sick". But these addicts often forget that they are "sick" and are assumed as free and responsible people, who are able to decide whether they want treatment or not! As a result of decriminalization the addict is considered a patient and not a delinquent. The state can not choose, through a political policy, a solution that gives priority to feed the "disease" rather than a cure! Resounding success? Glance at the results! - Manuel Pinto Coelho -President of the Association for a Drug Free Portugal"
http://www.braha.com.br...

That article about the "Real Facts" in Portugal, cited additional information from a poll done by the Catholic Church - the article itself cited proof that the one Portugal Doctor - Joao Goulao, MD, who did the study fudged his numbers, and the real facts prove that the Portugal Decriminalization Program started in 2001 has failed.

But, now the Catholic Church fudges numbers?

Where is your proof of that nonsense?

I think religion is the opiate of the masses; but, I have never known or have no proof that the Catholic Church has fudged numbers, not anymore than any others that twist statistics to fit their argument, e.g., Like Joao Goulao, MD, who claims Portugal's Drug Decriminalization program has worked, when in fact, it has not.

You know the sayings: "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" or "Figures Don"t Lie, But Liars Do Figure"

So, unless you can't cite your proof that the Catholic Church is fudging those numbers, you are just flapping your lips.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.