Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-17-2006, 02:54 PM   #31
EvelKnievel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
By "junkie" I assumed you meant hard-up addicts in general. It still upsets me to think that you would be willing to use someone for lab tests just because they have a disease (I had hoped you were joking).

I have known many junkies (Nebraska reaks of meth, Kansas City of smack), all of them focused only on their next fix, but none willing to kill for it (maybe scream in agony or beg for cash). Maybe I've been lucky to only have been associated with loving junkies.

I agree that there is a big problem and that statistics show increased violence, but based on my experiences I can't help but think that those higher numbers are related to other factors in that person's life.

And I didn't think you meant weed or shrooms.

Edit: I also wanted to refine my statement that "morality and drug use are not related." I have witnessed what can be described as moral decay in addicts, but not to the point of violence. I think that a person's convictions may be tested greatly while coming down, but if those convictions are strong to begin with the test is passable.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2006, 10:45 PM   #32
darwinfish
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Basically you can argue either selectively or broadly on this one. Really we're all animals so we should treat all animals similarly to ourselves. We humans share a pretty similar genome and unique characteristics like empathy and consciousness (or so we believe) so we should look out for our fellow humans before animals. Additionally, in our smaller groups such as our societies, the outcasts such as junkies break our social norms so why should we care about their life or well-being?

the question is really what do you emphasize? your group, species, or biological kingdom? and under what circumstances?

personally? I say, fuck junkies. If there's someone out there who loves them, then they should be taking them off the street. The government doesn't need to play daddy with fuck-ups.

as for animals...I generally side with them because when ever they seem to be getting in conflict with people it's because the people are usually being fucking stupid whereas animals just act on "instinct" (which includes instinctual learning). As for pampering pets, its pretty stupid, but apparently having a pet makes you live longer so how does that factor in?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2006, 01:47 PM   #33
Silentknight
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Actually groups such as PETA and the ALF would actively prohibit pet ownership if they ever got their way. To them pets are slaves, and they consider the owners to be slavers. It's no secret that they advocate the use of violence to spread their message.

Animal lovers should be careful not confuse these extremist groups with legitimate animal rights organizations such as the Humane Society or the ASPCA.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:10 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational