Dunno, Urban Dictionary only has references to the TV show and the literal meaning.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Newest Drug Lord Tech: Submarines.
- Thread starter Deck Knight
- Start date
It figures they would be the first people to make a sustained extraterrestrial colony.
Great respect for these men. While I'm sure they're only in it for the money, doing good (facilitating the basic human right to put whatever you choose in your body) even out of greed is still good.
As for armed drug subs - I'd have no problem with it. Certainly I believe these people have the right to sink any coast guard/navy threats: a for-profit concern that increases basic freedoms is worth a lot more to me than the enforcing hands of unjust government.
As for armed drug subs - I'd have no problem with it. Certainly I believe these people have the right to sink any coast guard/navy threats: a for-profit concern that increases basic freedoms is worth a lot more to me than the enforcing hands of unjust government.
I believe murder is perfectly acceptable when it is self-defence. That includes defence from unjust government. It is unjust to prevent people from doing whatever they like with their bodies, it is unjust to attempt to obstruct suppliers of things that have demand, it is unjust to lock them in tiny rooms for decades at a time in punishment for it. Murder is perfectly justified in defending one's self from these things.
Honestly, they deserve a good hard earned kudos for this. They were intelligent and stayed one step ahead of the government. Though I'm sure someone will find a way to track down these subs and capture them, but it won't be any time soon. Once they start thinking about making armed subs, the war is on.
Actually...Scratch that. They probably are making armed subs and just waiting for the right time to use them. So the war is ON!
For the record, murder is murder and there is no justification to it. Murder means: unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being. The key word here is premeditated. If you're defending yourself then that is not premeditated. Now if you had Armed subs and have these arms to take out opposing forces, then that is premeditated and considered murder. So them blowing up Navy ships and Coast guard ships is not justified by any means. Even if the government is unfair.
Actually...Scratch that. They probably are making armed subs and just waiting for the right time to use them. So the war is ON!
I can partially agree with your point about letting people do what they with their bodies, but there has to be some sort of regulation. I mean some of these druggies actually end up having children and these children will see this and start doing what's bad for them. You can't just let these people influence a generation to start thinking drugs are good for you or something like that. That's partially the reason why drug trafficking is trying to be prevented, other than the fact that they get money and we don't.
For the record, murder is murder and there is no justification to it. Murder means: unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being. The key word here is premeditated. If you're defending yourself then that is not premeditated. Now if you had Armed subs and have these arms to take out opposing forces, then that is premeditated and considered murder. So them blowing up Navy ships and Coast guard ships is not justified by any means. Even if the government is unfair.
You do realize that we're talking about murder, right? As in taking someone else's life? Murdering members of the Coast Guard and DEA, who are only trying to protect the citizens of the United States, is not justified by the greed of people trying to smuggle illegal goods into our country. Law enforcement agencies are trained to not attack suspects unless they themselves are in put in danger. Murder is certainly not the means by which you should be achieving the "freedom" you seek in using illegal drugs and, if anything, only harms your cause by causing more drug-related violence and making drug lords look even more like the pieces of shit that they are stereotypically portrayed as in the American media.
If a DEA agent randomly threatens to kill you and whips out his gun, drawing your own weapon and attacking him first is certainly reasonable, but him doing his job in stopping illegal substances from being smuggled into our country does not justify murder. One could argue that taxes aren't fair, but shooting an IRS agent who comes to audit you is far from okay.
Also, there are plenty of prescription drugs and other perfectly legal means of getting high to abuse that don't involve drug-smuggling. Hell, even a large portion of illegal drugs are homegrown too that you can take advantage of. Growing weed in your house or back yard is not that difficult.
I don't like American drug policy. I hate mandatory minimum sentences. I feel that our prison systems are far too overfilled with non-violent drug offenders. I even think that marijuana should be legal.
I would still never murder someone over it.
I was pointing out to the poster who had a problem with my putting the lives of drug dealers above the lives of those who would obstruct them that we don't all share the same values.
@ Tubaking - there's a difference between not wanting someone you care about to die and believing in an ineffable metaphysical constant that makes human life inherently valuable.
Which is to say, I would gladly see everyone who would obstruct freedom (in the case of the hypothetical scenario involving the coast guard and armed drug subs) lined up and shot into ditches, because I consider individual freedoms more important than any amount of collective ill will against them.
I am not suggesting the existance of a "soul" here. What I am suggesting is that everyone has someone else that cares about them, which is why murder is practically universally conisdered to be wrong (or at least one of the crimes that is most vehemently punished in this day and age, from a pragmatic standpoint). Not everyone shares your ideals of "freedom" manifesting itself through use of illicit drugs. Assassinating a tyrant for enslaving his people and putting them into hard labor camps and murdering DEA agents while trying to smuggle drugs aren't the same thing. Not even close.
Did someone get killed in a drug submarine raid or something y are we talkin about murder lol
It all started when I mentioned that the possible "next step" for the drug smugglers might be arming their submarines, and then attacking US Coastguard vessels.
Which considering it again seems unlikely. Defensive armament maybe, but the smugglers' goal is to get the drugs into the USA, not to wage war with the US Coastguard. Then again, the kinds of conflicts some other countries have between police and drugs gangs...
Which considering it again seems unlikely. Defensive armament maybe, but the smugglers' goal is to get the drugs into the USA, not to wage war with the US Coastguard. Then again, the kinds of conflicts some other countries have between police and drugs gangs...
To be fair, there's lots of ways to be an unfit parent regardless of drug use. And the type of people who would raise children while constantly shooting up are probably the same parents who would be negligent for a different reason- alcohol being a large one- if drugs were illegal.
But its still largely just an arbitrary value judgement- raising kids around drugs, assuming you don't neglect their needs or act as an unfit parent in some other way, is only bad if you accept the premise that drugs are bad. And while some can be addicting/have negative effects, the same is true of many legal substances.
100% agreed about murder being non-kosher though. And on topic, that is seriously impressive.
Submarines aren't exactly rocket science. Hell, enthusiasts with a small amount of money can do amazing things with submarines. Just add limitless dollars and the motivation and you're pretty much assured to get some tech.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I see no difference between the despot who bans dissent and the despot who bans drugs. Nor any difference between the enforcing arms of both despots.
I don't think you'll get freedom of drug use and freedom of expression on the same plane of logic anytime soon. Expression is a traditional fundamental right that needs to exist for societal progress, while drugs are a recreational activity that don't really contribute at all. I really don't see how they're remotely comparable. And I'm not exactly against drugs.
If Lelouch isn't gonna get himself banned just stop paying attention to him. He's already ignored half of you. If his nonsense upsets you, just don't pay him any mind.
Personal freedom (in this context, I mean the freedom to do what you like to yourself, not the freedom to go on a shooting rampage) is something I consider fundamental. To me, you simply can't reduce it without making it absolutely worthless. That's why banning (or otherwise attempting to curtail people using whatever drug they want) is to me no better, worse or even different than any other form of oppression you care to name. I freely acknowledge this is an absolutist viewpoint and thus unlikely to be shared, but there's no reason you shouldn't be able to comprehend it whether you agree or not.
In countries with "free" universal[sic] health care, I will acknowledge there is some merit to considering those who willingly partake of certain dangerous substances as having no right to expect the state to pay for them to be treated (assuming such matters are equal: driving anything but the safest of cars should be treated the same way), but saying "we won't take responsibility for looking after you if you take potentially harmful substances" is very different from "we will lock you up in a tiny room for a very long time if you take drugs we say are bad".
The problem with that level of thinking is that few actions have consequences only for yourself. In the context of drugs, you're financing the further distribution and use of drugs, while damaging yourself and possibly your environment. There's plenty of reasons drug use shouldn't be a fundamental freedom.
Why shouldn't one be allowed to finance the distribution and use of drugs? Why shouldn't you be allowed to harm yourself if that's what you want?
I'm unsure what you mean by "possibly damaging the environment". Do you mean the propensity for areas of widespread drug use to become slums? If so, what has that to do with my right to put whatever I want into my body? If you don't like that, fix the slums, don't revoke personal freedoms.
I'm unsure what you mean by "possibly damaging the environment". Do you mean the propensity for areas of widespread drug use to become slums? If so, what has that to do with my right to put whatever I want into my body? If you don't like that, fix the slums, don't revoke personal freedoms.
Basically...Detroit. I mean just look at Detroit. Ugh.