This one line says it all... to me anyways

Sorry - sometimes I can't hold my chello and urp up a bit...

 

1. Yours is a straw man argument, that does not actually address any of the matters I raise in my reply to your earlier comment...in post This one line says it all... to me anyways | Survival Monkey Forums. Instead you post a link to a journal article describing the points of view being discussed by two philosophers delving into the medical ethics of pregnancy termination, inferring that the rhetorical questions I posed somehow takes us down the slippery slope to post birth "abortion". The viewpoints of the journalists or the philosophers that he quotes, don't necessarily reflect my own...and it is very naughty of you to lay the red herring that directs attention to the inference that it might.

Furthermore you poison the well by describing what I posted as a "leftist" argument, as if pro choice is simply an obsession of the left. There are pro choice proponents among economic conservatives, libertarians, and folks who don't espouse to affiliation with any particular political creed.

2. A reductio ad absurdum fallacy, as applied by you, to the straw man argument you have constructed concerning "the leftist argument" does not add any weight to your own argument whatsoever. If anything, it diminishes it.

3. As interesting, and as impressive as the apparent paradox of this deepity may seem to some, It too is irrelevant. The capacity for good ,and evil, resides in humanity; I have not suggested otherwise. No supernatural entities required to explain that reality: or any suggestion that humans become Gods or Devils, or both simultaneously. Although many men and women have assumed the identity, and powers of Gods, or Devils: However, they are in the main considered insane, or are deified by the human creators of cults and religions which believe that their created godhead is actual.

I am getting the impression that to some, nanny states are inherently bad, except for those things that they believe, and agree upon, that a nanny state is essential to safeguard.....such as pro incubation and pro birth.

 

I am sure that many here sympathise with your position 3M.. For some reason people want to throw snickers at me (the confectionary kind), but I am loathe to recommend that to you...I don't think snickers are much of an anti-dyspeptic....I'd recomend Pepto Bismol instead. Remember, read the instructions before taking, and, if symptoms persist, seek competent medical advice from your physician.

I care about you, 3M, and my other American friends also....well, most of them, anyway.

 

This would be an attempt to silence me by inferring I am incapable of remaining silent.( reverse psychology), rather than addressing the problem for that drug abuse comes to work with you. ( if it stayed at home I wouldn't care).

I have a relative in a chair (minus his legs below the knees.) A stoned driver fell asleep at the wheel on the opposite side of freeway, crossed the median, hitting him head on. So he should only be prosecuted for having a traffic accident?

My sister ended up on crutches, car destroyed, both legs broken, due to a chemically confused old woman backing up in the center lane of the freeway. (She misses her exit..). So a ticket for being an obstruction to traffic would be enough?
I used to roof buildings as a framer. While setting a sheeted gable truss on the third floor wall top, (a three man operation with two wall walkers and a center man with a push stick) the other wall walker fell into the room, pushing me and the gable truss off the end of the building. Why? Still drunk from partying the night before. If I had hit anything but the pond, I would not be here now.
So what you ingest sure as heck affects me and mine.
I was forced to work with an alcoholic at another company, (he had 2 years seniority and was therefore in charge, yet he had so many DUIs he could not drive). When he ordered me to pull into a beer and wine shop so he could get more beer, I refused. He then reached into his lunchbox and produced a beer. (We are traveling between jobsites).
I told him if he cracked that seal, I would dump his @$$ on the side of the road. He gave me a big grin and gave it a twist.......I threw his butt out of the truck and called the boss to come get him.
I WILL NOT work with someone in impaired. Leave it at home.
I don't care what mind altering substance it is, if your lack of focus puts me at higher risk, you have made it MY problem.
People die or get mangled in my job even when they ARE focused.

 

I understand the recreational drugs being at home not on a job site and I agree with that. I would not like to work around people that are under the influence of drugs whether they are big pharmaceutical kind or cartel kind. I also like to add that maybe if all drugs were legalized, maybe some of these idiots would be purged from the gene pool.

 

Yep...let's outlaw everything that some fool might use negligently and hurt someone.

Same stupid "logic" used by the gun grabbers to justify their actions.

 

A person that does not respect them self, using drugs, likely does not respect their job, or other facets of life ,not some one I would employ .a liability .
If I were an employer I must look out for the safety of those working for me.
I have seen the result of dopers on the job, thank you very much ,too much is at stake.
So if a person wants to be a doper, don't expect to be employed . because as the job market tightens, liabilities will be eliminated .

As to the OP,
Teachers have always been liberals , and will always be, because they are government funded .
There teachers will push their liberal agendas on student teachers and base pass fail on agreement, not truth or reality.
What teacher have you ever had that did not base grading on their own opinions?
One of there reasons we home schooled, is the corrupt nature of the modern school system.

 

I don't think anyone here has advocated forcing anyone to hire those who use drugs or drug use on the job (unless it is a really rare and unusual job) any more than anyone would recommend leaving loaded guns lying around a preschool...so that tends to fit the title "strawman" quite well. The fact that someone might do stupid things with an object or substance is justification to punish the stupid thing they do, not outlawing the object with which they did it.

 

Those are ACTIONs that endanger...infringe upon the rights of...others.

What is the difference between using legal and illegal drugs? Nothing but the illegality. In both cases, if one is impaired in the performance of some ACTION that infringes upon the rights of others, that behavior should be punished...but the mere act of taking a drink, smoking a joint or popping some pill...legal or not...does not automagically put others at risk.

Come on Kell, THINK. Being impaired in some form != engaging in actions that can endanger others while impaired.

 

So is everything else I listed. Coming to work drunk or on drugs is an action that it dangerous me, and mine.
It also usually results in shoddy work which further endangers others, in my line of business.

 

There it is. Nanny Statism.

 

But nobody is talking about engaging in actions that would endanger others while impaired...which is quite different from the mere act of being impaired. If you can't see the difference then I have to ask; what is the cause of your own cognitive impairment?

 

Come to shout box for a minute because I won't put this in a thread.

 

Not letting you off that easy. Riddle me this...can you drink of alcohol without endangering the lives of others? Can you take pain killers without endangering the lives of others?

Most responsible people can do both without becoming a menace to society...ie they don't rush out to do brain surgery, operate heavy equipment or walk guard duty. Is there something about the legality of the drug that automagically makes that impossible?

 

I offered you an inside look. No further comment.

 

Not often I pass up a bong hit.

 

That seems to be an issue because I would estimate that 80% of drugs say do not operate machinery while taking the drugs. Most drugs also cause drowsiness. If people were not allowed out of their house while on any drug that could make you drowsy or impair your judgement then a very large percentage of the work force would not show up. People take pain killers every day. People take cold and allergy medicines. Even amoxicillin can cause drowsiness. IMO the country would come to a halt.

Now I will go see what the original topic was about.

 

They have been taught and told to say that preppers are crazy, nuts and doomers. The issue is that many liberals are in a way homesteaders. Not 100% but I see many soccer moms that have many of the same interests as me. They grow herbs, like chickens and are creative in getting things done. They are looking for a healthier way of life and one that does not rely on the toxic supermarkets.

@OldDude49 I believe you are correct in your assessment of the author. I agree that the author of that statement has no control over their on emotions. Obviously they are assuming that others lose control and are prone to violence or maybe even murder. That person is a danger to themselves and society