Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Socialist

16 (32%)

Green

8 (16%)

Peace and Freedom

2 (4%)

Democratic

1 (2%)

Transhumanist

11 (22%)

Libertarian

8 (16%)

Republican

2 (4%)

Constitution

2 (4%)

Total Members Voted: 49

[Descan]

Got Solid Liberal, but am probably more of a Faith and Family Liberal. (Despite being agnostic, I'm socially conservative by nature). The questions they use as a litmus test for social conservatism need to be updated- there are plenty of young evangelicals who are fine with gay marriage, for example, but positions on abortion have pretty much held steady across all age groups in the past forty years.

Used to be that people for gay marriage were pretty solidly in the "As long as y'all don't hurt someone, do what ya want", which includes most of the other "traditionally liberal" ideas, with the possible exception of abortion, depending on whether you consider a fetus a "someone" to hurt or not.

Now-a-days, less clear cut. People could be for gay marriage for other reasons besides a general liberal attitude since it's become normalized, so they might be for it, but more in-line in other social issues with a conserative outlook.

Right. Not everyone who supports gay marriage is a sex-positive young college student from the Bay Area. (Many sex-positive young college students forget this, then get angry when people who are nominally on the same side of the political spectrum as they are have the gall to hold the right positions for the "wrong reasons". I've known a few.)

I suspect something similar is operating with drug legalization- I'm in favor of pot legalization, for example, and lowering the drinking age back to eighteen, but I'm definitely not going to defend someone who sells their kids' possessions to buy meth. In other words, I'm still in favor of a war on drugs, even if I'm staunchly against the War on Drugs as she is waged. I can expound on this, but my proposed solution is fairly unorthodox.

I'm in favour of legalizing everything, and then getting a secular version of "AA" (Addictions, not just alcohol) for those who cannot handle it. "Punish" (more like, help) the consequences of doing something, not just doing it. I.E. Child endangerment, reckless driving or DUIs, reckless use of a giant bulldozer, etc.

Not to say that I think everyone and their mother should go out and do meth like people drink booze, but I don't think that illegality is any fix, and just makes things worse. Especially because I've seen tidbits of interesting studies that point to addiction being a matter of social and economic exclusion than anything about "addictive personalities", i.e. for the most part, people in good situations don't do drugs, or try and get off drugs if they're already physically addicted*. Hence, making it illegal just hurts the chances of them going to get help, for fear of getting thrown in jail.

*The existence of "cocaine is a rich-mans drug" is the reason I think it's "interesting" and "points to". More studies! MOAR.

But yeah, s'long as you ain't hurting anyone or doing anything (besides the drug itself) illegal, I see no reason to interfere. On a political, general level. On a personal level, I want my wot-cuddle-bro to stop smoking, but that's on a personal level. Personal things and views should only interefere with political views in terms of what you think needs to be an end-goal, not in terms of what needs to be done to get to that end-goal. Best-practices fills the "means" part.

[scrdest]

Business Conservative, apparently.

[Helgoland]

Next-Gen Left, probably because I don't think 'too much profit' is a thing.

It's weird how I'd have picked other options sometimes if the quiz had been about Europe.

[Graknorke]

Next-Gen Left, probably because I don't think 'too much profit' is a thing.

No, I picked not too much as well (really, what is 'too much'? The amount they make is appropriate for the revenue and costs of the business. I don't see how you could have too much). Still put me in Solid Liberal.

[FearfulJesuit]

Got Solid Liberal, but am probably more of a Faith and Family Liberal. (Despite being agnostic, I'm socially conservative by nature). The questions they use as a litmus test for social conservatism need to be updated- there are plenty of young evangelicals who are fine with gay marriage, for example, but positions on abortion have pretty much held steady across all age groups in the past forty years.

Used to be that people for gay marriage were pretty solidly in the "As long as y'all don't hurt someone, do what ya want", which includes most of the other "traditionally liberal" ideas, with the possible exception of abortion, depending on whether you consider a fetus a "someone" to hurt or not.

Now-a-days, less clear cut. People could be for gay marriage for other reasons besides a general liberal attitude since it's become normalized, so they might be for it, but more in-line in other social issues with a conserative outlook.

Right. Not everyone who supports gay marriage is a sex-positive young college student from the Bay Area. (Many sex-positive young college students forget this, then get angry when people who are nominally on the same side of the political spectrum as they are have the gall to hold the right positions for the "wrong reasons". I've known a few.)

I suspect something similar is operating with drug legalization- I'm in favor of pot legalization, for example, and lowering the drinking age back to eighteen, but I'm definitely not going to defend someone who sells their kids' possessions to buy meth. In other words, I'm still in favor of a war on drugs, even if I'm staunchly against the War on Drugs as she is waged. I can expound on this, but my proposed solution is fairly unorthodox.

I'm in favour of legalizing everything, and then getting a secular version of "AA" (Addictions, not just alcohol) for those who cannot handle it. "Punish" (more like, help) the consequences of doing something, not just doing it. I.E. Child endangerment, reckless driving or DUIs, reckless use of a giant bulldozer, etc.

Not to say that I think everyone and their mother should go out and do meth like people drink booze, but I don't think that illegality is any fix, and just makes things worse. Especially because I've seen tidbits of interesting studies that point to addiction being a matter of social and economic exclusion than anything about "addictive personalities", i.e. for the most part, people in good situations don't do drugs, or try and get off drugs if they're already physically addicted*. Hence, making it illegal just hurts the chances of them going to get help, for fear of getting thrown in jail.

*The existence of "cocaine is a rich-mans drug" is the reason I think it's "interesting" and "points to". More studies! MOAR.

But yeah, s'long as you ain't hurting anyone or doing anything (besides the drug itself) illegal, I see no reason to interfere. On a political, general level. On a personal level, I want my wot-cuddle-bro to stop smoking, but that's on a personal level. Personal things and views should only interefere with political views in terms of what you think needs to be an end-goal, not in terms of what needs to be done to get to that end-goal. Best-practices fills the "means" part.

I'm not particularly concerned about the right of people who do meth not to go to jail. People have families, relationships and jobs; substance abuse creates collateral damage, and hard drug users aren't innocent because of some half-baked argument about personal autonomy.

No, what I'm concerned about is that the War on Drugs has become a bonanza for organized crime and fuelled political instability and massacres from Afghanistan to Colombia. A better option- as I have said, this is unorthodox- is for the government (yes!) to create state drug shops that do not card, do not have cameras, do not record customers, and sell hard drugs at very low prices. Law enforcement will concern itself not with going after dealers (which will disappear, since they can't compete with the state stores) but with end-users; for example, if a drug test you did showed cocaine or meth use, that would be reported. Voilą: by making a 180 on the current legal stance (switching from arresting dealers and leaving users more or less alone to making dealing legal and use illegal), you've cut off the taps on drug cartels' sources of income without condoning hard drug use.

[Remuthra]

Got Solid Liberal, but am probably more of a Faith and Family Liberal. (Despite being agnostic, I'm socially conservative by nature). The questions they use as a litmus test for social conservatism need to be updated- there are plenty of young evangelicals who are fine with gay marriage, for example, but positions on abortion have pretty much held steady across all age groups in the past forty years.

Used to be that people for gay marriage were pretty solidly in the "As long as y'all don't hurt someone, do what ya want", which includes most of the other "traditionally liberal" ideas, with the possible exception of abortion, depending on whether you consider a fetus a "someone" to hurt or not.

Now-a-days, less clear cut. People could be for gay marriage for other reasons besides a general liberal attitude since it's become normalized, so they might be for it, but more in-line in other social issues with a conserative outlook.

Right. Not everyone who supports gay marriage is a sex-positive young college student from the Bay Area. (Many sex-positive young college students forget this, then get angry when people who are nominally on the same side of the political spectrum as they are have the gall to hold the right positions for the "wrong reasons". I've known a few.)

I suspect something similar is operating with drug legalization- I'm in favor of pot legalization, for example, and lowering the drinking age back to eighteen, but I'm definitely not going to defend someone who sells their kids' possessions to buy meth. In other words, I'm still in favor of a war on drugs, even if I'm staunchly against the War on Drugs as she is waged. I can expound on this, but my proposed solution is fairly unorthodox.

I'm in favour of legalizing everything, and then getting a secular version of "AA" (Addictions, not just alcohol) for those who cannot handle it. "Punish" (more like, help) the consequences of doing something, not just doing it. I.E. Child endangerment, reckless driving or DUIs, reckless use of a giant bulldozer, etc.

Not to say that I think everyone and their mother should go out and do meth like people drink booze, but I don't think that illegality is any fix, and just makes things worse. Especially because I've seen tidbits of interesting studies that point to addiction being a matter of social and economic exclusion than anything about "addictive personalities", i.e. for the most part, people in good situations don't do drugs, or try and get off drugs if they're already physically addicted*. Hence, making it illegal just hurts the chances of them going to get help, for fear of getting thrown in jail.

*The existence of "cocaine is a rich-mans drug" is the reason I think it's "interesting" and "points to". More studies! MOAR.

But yeah, s'long as you ain't hurting anyone or doing anything (besides the drug itself) illegal, I see no reason to interfere. On a political, general level. On a personal level, I want my wot-cuddle-bro to stop smoking, but that's on a personal level. Personal things and views should only interefere with political views in terms of what you think needs to be an end-goal, not in terms of what needs to be done to get to that end-goal. Best-practices fills the "means" part.

I fully support this line of reasoning. From a legal perspective, the definition of wronghood is the infringement of someone's rights, and if you're not doing that there's no reason you shouldn't be allowed to do anything. In other words, doing drugs is fine, but if you commit a crime while under them there is no excuse and the perpetrator faces capital punishment. There's no good reason why vehicular manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter under the influence should be different offenses.

[Culise]

Solid Liberal, naturally.  While I know the poll is supposed to represent the American political dichotomy, it just made me die a little inside every time a major issue was boiled down to one of two talking points - "racial discrimination or their own fault"; "poor people need government bennies or forget the poor." 

[WillowLuman]

-snip for length-

Woah, capital punishment for any crime commited under the influence? And how does sanctioning sales but criminalizing use make any sense? That's basically entrapment. It's precisely because we throw everyone who uses or even touches illegal substances in prison (while the dealers don't get caught nearly as often, due to how few of them there are compared to users) that our prisons are so overcrowded. We don't need to go around locking up addicts, we need to break their addiction. I believe legalizing and regulating substances would be a big blow to organized crime, but continuing America's appalling prison practices is a bad idea.

[scrdest]

-snip for length-

Woah, capital punishment for any crime commited under the influence? And how does sanctioning sales but criminalizing use make any sense? That's basically entrapment. It's precisely because we throw everyone who uses or even touches illegal substances in prison (while the dealers don't get caught nearly as often, due to how few of them there are compared to users) that our prisons are so overcrowded. We don't need to go around locking up addicts, we need to break their addiction. I believe legalizing and regulating substances would be a big blow to organized crime, but continuing America's appalling prison practices is a bad idea.

No - Remuthra's (and mine, in fact) argument is that if you kill someone just because, you get the same sentence if you killed someone because you took PCP and voices told you to. Murder is murder, vehicular manslaughter is vehicular manslaughter, and if you did that, what matters is that your actions have directly led to this happening.

[Graknorke]

If intent doesn't matter, what's the point of having manslaughter as a crime at all?

[scrdest]

If intent doesn't matter, what's the point of having manslaughter as a crime at all?

Intent does matter. That's why it'd be vehicular manslaughter, not murder - you didn't decide running over random people was a good idea because hey, ethanol!, you just couldn't control the car.

On the other hand, if your brain tells you you should kill someone and munch on their body, it's really unlikely what happens is an accident. Hence, murder.

[LordSlowpoke]

why are we humoring ourselves with putting a zombie on trial anyway

is this a reference to the superhero florida man

[MaximumZero]

Solid liberal here. No surprise.

[Dutchling]

Next gen left.

I dont even own a console.

[Darvi]

Not enough third options.