http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/12/woman-dies-from-drinking-10-liters-coke-day-coroner-says/
Should we ban coca cola because someone used it to drink herself to death? I think not, and every namby-pamby liberal who talks about substance abuse victims are just fighting evolution in action. http://envirothink.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/epa-says-saccharin-no-longer-considered-a-carcinogen/ There's a prime example of the nanny state with its head up its A$$ being forced to retract a decree. Lonnie Courtney Clay On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:30:27 PM UTC-7, Lonnie Clay wrote: > > "In some ways I'm not sure why any of us are still working. " > > Well, the alternatives to working are taking charity from family or > friends (I do), accepting government assistance (I do), accepting charity > from benevolent organizations, living off accumulated wealth, borrowing > money, or theft. The white collar crimes outweigh the petty thefts by a > significant factor, often being measured in billions rather than millions. > I put the increase down to cultural shifting towards dishonesty, caused > primarily by childhood indoctrination from entertainment media that crime > DOES pay, and pays quite well. Another factor is increased technological > capabilities, especially computers, which allow criminals to commit > esoteric crimes such as identity theft, derivatives fraud, and money > laundering. Most of the increased law enforcement efforts have been > ineffective in stemming the tide of crime. Harsher punishments unless well > publicized are not effective as a deterrent against budding criminals. The > basic problem is that people can now SEE that others reap rewards without > hard work, either through crime or free handouts, due to sensationalist > journalism and entertainment. > > One of the more controversial things which I have proposed in the past is > that handouts NOT be free, that they should require community service in > exchange. Another is that all criminals should have to pay for their crimes > not only with incarceration, but also with restitution to victims, and > remedial counseling before their release. Parole oversight needs to be > improved as well. > > Drug trafficking has become a major worldwide industry due to government > efforts to stop substance abuse. It didn't work with alcohol and it won't > work for the rest, it just creates yet another class of criminal. Let the > drug companies manufacture abused substances just like they do the > thousands of prescription drugs which have the population hooked-on drugs. > Require package inserts which detail the bad effects of the drugs and leave > it up to the individual making the purchase to decide whether to be a user. > Increase the penalties for crimes committed while under the influence of > drugs, just as DWI is a higher charge than reckless driving. Make drugging > someone without their knowledge a 20 year felony. > > I don't want to talk any more about crime online, since I suspect that it > would just be a tutorial for novices. > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:05:01 PM UTC-7, archytas wrote: >> >> I think you get all that right Lonnie. I've been trying to find out >> what financial sector debt in the UK really is for over two years. In >> numbers its anything from 230 - 510% of our GDP - a pretty >> discouraging lack of accuracy - but I want to know its 'quality'. The >> debt may be a good thing - a set of good performing loans - or it may >> put the UK in a dire condition because its really Ponzi money relying >> on asset valuations that are now mostly fictional. If the latter is >> true the questions are about who will take the haircuts and whether >> the UK taxpayer/bank account holder/bond holder etc. is on the hook. >> Otherwise our government/household/corporate debt is comparable with >> the US. >> As a scientist I'd want to take a sample of the debt and try to sell >> it in an open market. Its all currently valued by people with a >> vested interest in making out everything is profitable - techniques we >> know are bollox. >> Frankly I believe all financial services (beyond utility banking) and >> most economics are uselessly parasitic on genuine work and >> production. I want to be able to ground this so we can move on to a >> different way of living. I can barely describe what a putrid swamp >> the mainstream is. Two Harvard arses, Reinhart & Rogoff have just >> been exposed cheating as surely as any of my students through >> spreadsheet manipulation. Their work had been widely used in support >> of austerity programmes, but now we know they fiddled the figures and >> the real case on their numbers was against austerity. I can't trust >> allegedly peer reviewed papers, let alone stuff in which several >> Enrons are considered as viable and even thriving through bent >> auditing. >> In some ways I'm not sure why any of us are still working. >> >> On Apr 13, 4:16 pm, Lonnie Clay <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote: >> > Worldwide economies are foundering upon the rocks of modern >> entertainments. >> > I'll make the case for that. The rational response of a person to a >> > stimulus is to do more of those things which bring pleasure rather than >> > punishment or boredom. With the rise of fiction in all of its forms, a >> > person can gain pleasure from imagined world-scapes outside of the >> "real" >> > world's boundaries of experience. The pleasure of working life >> achievement >> > is limited to those who are both talented and trained to exercise their >> > talents. So which one do people choose when given the alternatives? >> They >> > increasingly choose entertainment, escaping from their fruitless >> humdrum >> > day to day existences into imaginary worlds of achievement. One reason >> for >> > that is the lack of opportunities in the modern economy resulting from >> the >> > failure of the educational systems to prepare people for productive >> working >> > careers. Another is the cultural shift towards self-gratification >> rather >> > than service to society. A third is the diminished rewards from working >> > resulting from the marginal reduction of income increase resulting from >> > government's taxation of wages economic activity. Why work harder to >> gain >> > more income when the government takes away more and more as your income >> > rises? Yet another is the diminished cost of life's necessities and >> modest >> > luxuries due to increased efficiency of production from product mass >> > manufacturing. Why work harder when you have everything which you need? >> > >> > These factors result in diminished work force participation, the rise >> of >> > the welfare class, fewer employees working hard, market dislocations, >> and >> > diminished work ethics. >> > >> > Lonnie Courtney Clay >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Friday, April 12, 2013 7:48:51 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: >> > >> > > Because it is so screwed up throughout the world that not fixing it >> is >> > > bound to lead to great social upheaval?????..... I think so. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
