Staredit Network

I'll stop you right there.

NO.

When taking meth, commiting suicide, etc., you are hurting yourself. You are not infringing upon anyone's rights. When killing people, you are infringing on their rights. When setting your house on fire -- unless you are in the middle of nowhere -- you are putting others' property at extreme risk. That's no different from firing bullets in random directions.



NO. Dumb*ss.

About my obvious typo with "suth"... if you think that means I am less intelligent, then you're an idiot.




About the rest: It's just retarded, so I don't feel a need to respond (I allegedly secretly want people to take drugs, which someone means I'm forcing them to? Right. Drugs don't become cooler because they are against the law? Right.1).

Basically, I will sum up my view as follows:

Everyone should be allowed to do anything they want, as long as they don't infringe on others' rights. Period. If you want to take meth? Fine. If you want to take rat poison? Fine. If you want to commit suicide? Fine.

Just don't force anyone else to do those things.



Of course, the socialists and fascists (and both, in Cheeze's case) don't like personal responsibility. There is little help for them.

There was a book where that happened. It didn't end well at all...

It's ok ihatett, I know you're too lazy to read it.


I'm pretty sure my house is my property. And because it's my property, I have the right to set it on fire.

The accidents that occur after don't matter because it started as me doing something legal.


Yes, it's "they're", not "their".

I didn't say you would be less intelligent, I simply said for someone who claimed to be that intelligent. Basically, you tried to rise up, I simply made you sit down again.


You remember when I told you to stop making so many ad hoc fallacies? Well, stop it. You're doing it again.

Also, for your not replying to my post, please, it only shows ignorance and close mindedness. I don'dt know how it's "retarded" because it's backed with evidence and reasoning. Something I feel you won't understand.

As for your last part, whatever you say Mr. Communist.

Damn, lost my post.

[I was looking at the wrong "their": the one closest to your comment. Yes, that's a typo, but it's the middle of the night, and I don't see why you are obsessing over typos.]


Why do you care whether something started off legally? Do you think that shooting a gun indescriminatly from your front lawn is OK? No? Explain the discrepancy. If you don't believe what you wrote, explain why you wrote it (because no one else believes it).



Tell me this: Why should meth/suicide be illegal? What right do you have telling someone what to do? Get over your control fetish, man. As long as they aren't violating someone else's rights, you have no business telling them what to do.

ADDITION:


I'm not.

You just enjoy using buzzwords.

Ad hoc fallacy. I never said such a thing! If you can prove me wrong, then I guess I'm wrong.


I don't care, but since you think you're so smart, I think it's ironic you would have such simple mistakes.


Once again, you are being close minded. If I burned my house and it was legal, then all actions after this event is either also legal or not my problem.

If I burned my house, it will spread to other houses. I don't know that, but it's possible and I set my house on fire and I am amazed. That is, until it starts burning other houses and people start to complain. Naturally, I would say "It's ok! Ihatett said as long as this is legal, then there is nothing wrong. I didn't damage your property, it was only a side effect to what I was doing with mine." Then everyone will go back to their burnt houses and laugh. [/end crazy story]

BIG NOTE:::
Hey buddy, try reading my post. Most of things you're saying is already addressed. Stop pretending you read it and actually read it. I know what I typed and I've memorized all the arguements I have in there. You're repeating yourself which is not good because it's not cool It'll make you less popular and thus less influential on other people.

Okay well I'm too feebleminded to argue between you two.

Yet CheeZe's points have led me to believe that meth is best kept illegal, because of the fact that if it does get widespread, which it has the potential to do, it will indirectly affect me in many ways. It is too inconvenient to have to constantly worry about whether or not the food I am eating is laced with meth for example. The potential is just too great, but by making meth illegal it takes the stress off of me, because I'm not a meth user. It's simply that because I do not want to use meth, I have no reason to support it being legal. If things that others do would have no effect on me at all then I would be fine with it, yet legalizing meth would impact me in many ways.

EDIT: I believe CheeZe's arguments are superior to ihatett's

Your post was not well reasoned. I only respond to things that I feel are dangerous to my side of the argument, and what you wrote simply isn't a threat. I don't waste my time with complete crap anymore, because there's really no use.

Also, tell me what makes me a communist. Thanks.

Why don't you read my post and you'll find out all of the information you need. Actually, this might be too hard for you but read it, then connect the points.

As for why you're a communist, I already stated in my original post. Here's the quote:

Free tip: Don't argue against just this. Argue against the arguement that you were arguing against with this attached to it. Sound too confusing? It shoudln't if you're as smart as you claim.

You said it. Scroll up if you don't believe me.




No. Again, if you are in the middle of nowhere, then you are putting no one at risk, and you may burn your house down. However, as we all know, the only rights that exist are negative rights (no one can do x to you). Your neighbors have a right not to have their house/trees/property burned down, so in a residential area, you lighting your house on fire violates that right. It's like my gun firing example. You have a right to fire a gun, but not indescriminately. Considering I have been saying this, I don't see why you would claim that I support the opposite.

ADDITION:

In response to your above reply:

Haha, you self-owned yourself with that quote (and with your typo after the quote ).

To answer: since you can't see the difference between actively murdering people and alegedly wanting others to volluntarily take drugs, I have no reason to continue this argument.

You've been self-owned, and owned by me.

ihatett. I'll make a deal with you. I'll argue against everything you have if you do the same with me.

First, start by reading my post, then quoting each. Then, do a little research as you go along. Finally, combine the research with your ideas and argue against what I said.

I will do the same. Until then, stop posting because you're just ignoring all of my arguements as if it's false. Which you only claim, providing no evidence. I'll accept it as false if you can defeat me.

Good luck.

I'm not going to let you waste my time. I'm only going to argue with the things that represent a threat. And I'd look at my previous reply.

You are the best dodger I've seen in months. Congrats!

Nope, you asked for the quote, and I gave it. What I won't give you is my time responding to your nonsensical points. I only respond to the good ones.

About dodging, I'll go ahead and repost my last post. When I reference the "above reply", I mean for that post.
------------------

ADDITION:


You said it. Scroll up if you don't believe me.




No. Again, if you are in the middle of nowhere, then you are putting no one at risk, and you may burn your house down. However, as we all know, the only rights that exist are negative rights (no one can do x to you). Your neighbors have a right not to have their house/trees/property burned down, so in a residential area, you lighting your house on fire violates that right. It's like my gun firing example. You have a right to fire a gun, but not indescriminately. Considering I have been saying this, I don't see why you would claim that I support the opposite.

ADDITION:

In response to your above reply:

Haha, you self-owned yourself with that quote (and with your typo after the quote ).

To answer: since you can't see the difference between actively murdering people and allegedly wanting others to voluntarily take drugs, I have no reason to continue this argument.

You've been self-owned, and owned by me.

-----------
You claimed I made up what you said, and I posted proof. As an intentional liar, you should be suspended.

ADDITION:
You try to control people's lives in ways that you have no business doing. You should be punished for that (death, fines, I don't know). You really do have a fetish for controlling others.


However, if you want me to help you find a specialist to aid you in getting over it, I'll do that. But don't try and waste SEN's time with your presence. Thank you!

No, his arguement has no basis behind it other then the fact that some drugs are addictive. Though, what he mean by drugs, is illegial drugs that are harmful. Why would be bring up the use of "drugs" that make food taste better into an arguement about crystal meth? No, since he didn't. He's trying to convince us that people are going to start putting crystal meth into everything they eat and drink since they are addicted to it. Just since Meth would be legal doesn't mean putting meth into people's food without informing them would be considered illegial, would it not? The arguement is unbacked.

"Hey! Meth IS LEGALIZED, WOOT!"
"LET'S GO PUT IT INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S FOOD!"
"KLOL GOOD IDEA."

No, it would not be like that.

As we know, nicotine (legal) is slipped into people's foods all the time. That must be why he's being so paranoid.

Correct.

I didn't say it would. My whole post was based on the fact that it has potential to be put into it. Would you like to live with that potential?


So then, ihatett, assuming you are correct, are you happy about nicotine being in your food then?


Actually, I can. The problem is, it is you who said we should legalize everything; this allowed me to make the comparison. Whether or not you meant just meth doesn't matter because you made the mistake and I exploited it.

I don't get owned by myself. It is impossible. You can only misunderstand my arguements; in that cases, you've made a logical error. In that case, you have been self owned.


I don't have vision problems. Why are you posting it in big letters? Are you trying to make me angry because it signifies shouting? How pathetic.

I don't try to control people's live; you misunderstand my arugements. There's a difference between controlling peoples lives and limiting dangers.


Yeah; another good idea on SEN is to read the posts to not look stupid when something's already been addressed. You should follow it.

Looking out for the good of mankind is being a fascist? LOL!



If you would actually read mine and his posts, you would find the answer. But apperently, you seem to be to lazy to read the points of the arguments, and create your own arguments after ignoring our points.

Like I stated earlier. Learn how to debate, then come back.



Um... Are you stupid? Just because you live out in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean you will not damage other peoples property.

IE, I burn my house down. The wind catches up and takes the fire two to four acres away and starts my neighbors' property on fire. Oh, all the grass and weeds around my house are on fire, too. Therefor, it even spreads on the ground to my neighbors' property.

And with the closest town 18-20 miles away, which is a good fourty-minute to an hour drive, the whole village could be aflame!

Again like I have stated before. Common Sense..

1:

ROFL!

Why would you even ask that!?

2: Apologize for calling me a liar. You still haven't admitted that you said it, even though I quoted it.

3:

You're right. I guess you shouldn't ever be allowed to set your house on fire, unless you are completely sure you won't endanger others. It's funny that you try and prove me wrong on this, considering it actually helps my case.

4: I don't know why you guys keep using euphemisms (I'm not controlling people, I'm helping them!). Do you think people don't notice you're doing this? See number 5.


5: Well, again, since you dodged it, answer this short and simple question:

Why should meth/suicide be illegal? What right do you have telling someone what to do? Get over your control fetish, man. As long as they aren't violating someone else's rights, you have no business telling them what to do.

In response to #3. How does it help your argument? It proves your argument wrong because any fire will damage everyone elses property, dumb ass.

And why should meth/suicide be illegal? Well first, Meth is highly addictive and makes you think irrationally. I find it hillarious that you still cannot see how it would work it's way into EVERYTHING.

Suicide is already illegal you moron. If you attempt suicide and succeed, good for you! But if you fail, you get thrown in jail, and put in into a helpful program. Thus wasting our tax dollars on your pathetic ass.

Control fetish? We are trying to help people by taking this dangerous drug off the streets and you want to make it legal so they will be all twackers! Oh, and plus. If it's legal, the government controls it, thus giving them CONTROL over the populus because they would be able to TAKE IT AWAY!

Again, you make false arguments based on dillusions in your head.

And if I am right, doing drugs IS violating someone elses rights, if i'm not mistakened. According to the law, it is. So are you now going to say that the law is :poo:, and untruthfull? Because that seems to be what you have done with mine and Cheeze's points.

If meth was legal, the first thing I would do is slip it into your food and make you die, maybe then you will see one of the points of making meth illegal.

Kellimus, for that last post, you should be banned. No one that stupid should be allowed at this site.



No, it doesn't. My point wasn't that burning houses should be illegal; it was in fact a concession to cheeze. If you weren't out to prove me wrong, you would have realized this. You helped me case out, thanks.



Why the hell would it work it's way into everything!? Why are you so paranoid? Do people slip you caffeine, nicotine, etc. whenever your out? NO! You really need help getting over this problem of yours.




Incredibly smart comment. I asked why you have the right to tell others by law whether they are allowed to commit suicide, and you respond by saying, "It wastes money because it's illegal!". Well, no sh*t! I'm asking you why it should be illegal, and you give that response? Dumb*ss.



You think that people won't be able to make correct decisions by themselves, so you are going to make their decisions for them. That is a control fetish. Get over it.



No, you simply lack any intelligence. Aren't you the same person with the internet girl[man]friend?



Another brilliant comment there, dumb*ss. Again, I ask you why it should be illegal (it doesn't violate others' rights), and you respond by saying, "It violates others rights because it is illegal!" Try again. No, actually, just go away. That's the second time you've done that in one post.



Nah, you're just retarded. You are so stupid, so socialist, and so fascists that I want to drive a nail into your eye. You should be banned for this last reply alone.



Here is my question again:

Why should meth/suicide be illegal? What right do you have telling someone what to do? Get over your control fetish, man. As long as they aren't violating someone else's rights, you have no business telling them what to do.

I'm not going to sacrifice my health and allow the potential for me to become addicted to a drug that I don't want, just to allow all the idiots in the US to get addicted to it.

Also instead of meth directly affecting you by someone slipping something into your food, think of this, which isn't being as "paranoid". If meth does so much harm to someone's body and makes them think irrationally, then I think that it would be very dangerous if everyone started using meth and getting into accidents all the time. While you may not be the one who caused the accident, it doesn't take much for some idiot to create an accident and get you involved in it.

It would be like making drinking while intoxicated legal, and have no limit to how much alcohol you can have in your system.

Slipping people drugs would be illegal, as would public intoxication (why would that change?).

Do you really need to call him names as you attempt to prove him wrong? If you're just going to flame him like a block of ice until he melts, you're not going to remain here long.

You know, your arguments would make a lot more sense and would be more acceptable if you didn't project an air of superiority around yourself and make the occasional stupid comment.

Some of what you say has its merits.