<![CDATA[Teen Infidels - All Forums]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/ Sun, 20 May 2012 23:28:30 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Registrations open once again]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=279 Sat, 23 Jul 2011 23:35:40 -0500 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=279
We are happy to announce that we are reopening our website once again to the public, In the next few days we working on a new theme, we invite all current users to start posting once again and new users to come join our great community!

Best Regards,
Francisck
Teen Infidels CEO]]>
We are happy to announce that we are reopening our website once again to the public, In the next few days we working on a new theme, we invite all current users to start posting once again and new users to come join our great community!

Best Regards,
Francisck
Teen Infidels CEO]]> <![CDATA[2012]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=146 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:05:25 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=146
I've given it some though and I think that there will be a new beginning, not destruction but a drastic shift in the way we think of things.]]>
I've given it some though and I think that there will be a new beginning, not destruction but a drastic shift in the way we think of things.]]> <![CDATA[Mac vs. Windows]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=147 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:01:28 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=147
Just thinking of usability, what do you like most windows or mac?]]>
Just thinking of usability, what do you like most windows or mac?]]> <![CDATA[Dilemma.]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=149 Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:04:36 -0500 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=149 <![CDATA[Uhm. I Might Have Gotten My Girlfriend Pregnant...]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=150 Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:18:09 -0500 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=150 <![CDATA[Hi]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=151 Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:03:37 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=151 <![CDATA[saddam hanging]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=152 Mon, 01 Jan 2007 01:30:19 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=152
]]>
]]> <![CDATA[Is Islam the problem or is it politics?]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=153 Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:22:53 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=153 <![CDATA[War on Christmas]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=154 Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:20:11 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=154
Personally, I don't think it has to be. See, people are interpreting "Happy Holidays" as "Secular Propaganda". On the contrary; see, people think it's not religious because it doesn't state a specific religion. "Happy Holidays" is just a way of recognizing all religions at once so we don't have to say "Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and/or Kwanzaa!" The so-called "Anti-Christmas groups" don't (or at least shouldn't) want to destroy recognition of Christmas, but rather wish to get equal recognition in public environments. Wouldn't Christians be mighty pissed if greeters at Wal-Mart said "Happy Hanukkah!"? Well, non christians feel the same way in the opposite direction.

Your thoughts?]]>
Personally, I don't think it has to be. See, people are interpreting "Happy Holidays" as "Secular Propaganda". On the contrary; see, people think it's not religious because it doesn't state a specific religion. "Happy Holidays" is just a way of recognizing all religions at once so we don't have to say "Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and/or Kwanzaa!" The so-called "Anti-Christmas groups" don't (or at least shouldn't) want to destroy recognition of Christmas, but rather wish to get equal recognition in public environments. Wouldn't Christians be mighty pissed if greeters at Wal-Mart said "Happy Hanukkah!"? Well, non christians feel the same way in the opposite direction.

Your thoughts?]]> <![CDATA[From a Christians perspective, did God send hurricane Katrina to New Orleans?]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=155 Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:18:30 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=155 <![CDATA[Is there anywhere I can find a complete list of absurd bible verses?]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=156 Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:17:21 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=156
Is there already such a list? If not, let's make one]]>
Is there already such a list? If not, let's make one]]> <![CDATA[What would it take for you to believe in god?]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=157 Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:15:41 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=157
Of course this question is based to the unbelievers, but what would have to happen if order to make you believe that there is a god up there?]]>
Of course this question is based to the unbelievers, but what would have to happen if order to make you believe that there is a god up there?]]> <![CDATA[10 myths about atheism]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=158 Sun, 24 Dec 2006 22:32:41 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=158
1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.

The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

6) Atheists are arrogant.

When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences. There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature's laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.

From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.


9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.]]>
1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.

The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

6) Atheists are arrogant.

When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences. There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature's laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.

From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.


9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.]]> <![CDATA[Digg our article "argument against anarchy 2"]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=159 Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:39:44 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=159

http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Ar..._Anarchy_2]]>

http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Ar..._Anarchy_2]]> <![CDATA[Argument against anarchy 2]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=160 Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:30:05 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=160 Arguement Against Anarchy 2

Authority, as I use the word, means violently imposed decisionmaking. Self-defense is not authority because it is not decisionmaking, it is just violence. The decisions of someone you choose to follow are not authority because they are not violently imposed. I understand that other definitions of the word exist, but this is how I will be using the word. I believe it is not terribly different from how most people use the word when debating against the assertions I'm going to try to make here.

A common objection to anyone proposing the abolition of government is the cry that "Authority is necessary!"

No it's not. Let's take a look at why it's not.

If authority is necessary, then authority is necessary for everyone. If not, it's unnecessary.

Who is the authority of the authorities? Nobody. They either do not need authority, in which case authroity is unnecessary, or they need an authority and don't have one, in which case the present system is a failure.

Or perhaps authority over the ruled rests in the ruled themselves. But that is not only impossible, but absurd. It is impossible because the nature of authority is violence, and if authority rests in the ruled, then subjection to the authority must be absolutely voluntary. It's absurd because, if authority over me is granted to George W. Bush, and authority over George W. Bush is granted to me, we own each other, but not ourselves. Why is this necessary? Why can GWB not lead himself and why can I not lead myself? It is necessary that we must be slaves to one another?

But that's avoiding the issue most people mean when they say authority is necessary. They usually are thinking in terms of "We must protect the weak against the strong." What this really means is "Protection must be provided by force." Why? It makes no sense. Maybe sometime soon I'll make a post about private police protection.

Let me second point out what a contradiction this is. Protection against what? Violence? And you violently impose this protection upon them? Doesn't that make the whole thing self-defeating?

They also frequently believe that authority is necessary to keep people in check. This is also untrue. People who want to hurt others will not be stopped by authority. People who do not want to hurt others are not being stopped by authority. Removing authority will not turn a peaceful, married father of three into a theif. And any authority short of omniscient cannot stop a dediated killer from killing.

I've also heard an arguement about liability. Supposedly, without a central authority, nobody would be held liable. This is untrue and backwards. With a central authority, nobody in the central authority is held liable. With no authority, everyone can hold anyone else liable for a tort or breech of contract or use of violence or whatever. Only under central authority do we get such bullshit as "Sovereign Immunity".

So no. Authority is not "necessary". The moment you try to apply it, it starts contradicting itself. It's not only unnecessary, it's absurd. Stop believing this stupid rhetoric.
[url="http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2006/12/arguement-against-anarchy-2.html"]
Source[/url]]]> Arguement Against Anarchy 2

Authority, as I use the word, means violently imposed decisionmaking. Self-defense is not authority because it is not decisionmaking, it is just violence. The decisions of someone you choose to follow are not authority because they are not violently imposed. I understand that other definitions of the word exist, but this is how I will be using the word. I believe it is not terribly different from how most people use the word when debating against the assertions I'm going to try to make here.

A common objection to anyone proposing the abolition of government is the cry that "Authority is necessary!"

No it's not. Let's take a look at why it's not.

If authority is necessary, then authority is necessary for everyone. If not, it's unnecessary.

Who is the authority of the authorities? Nobody. They either do not need authority, in which case authroity is unnecessary, or they need an authority and don't have one, in which case the present system is a failure.

Or perhaps authority over the ruled rests in the ruled themselves. But that is not only impossible, but absurd. It is impossible because the nature of authority is violence, and if authority rests in the ruled, then subjection to the authority must be absolutely voluntary. It's absurd because, if authority over me is granted to George W. Bush, and authority over George W. Bush is granted to me, we own each other, but not ourselves. Why is this necessary? Why can GWB not lead himself and why can I not lead myself? It is necessary that we must be slaves to one another?

But that's avoiding the issue most people mean when they say authority is necessary. They usually are thinking in terms of "We must protect the weak against the strong." What this really means is "Protection must be provided by force." Why? It makes no sense. Maybe sometime soon I'll make a post about private police protection.

Let me second point out what a contradiction this is. Protection against what? Violence? And you violently impose this protection upon them? Doesn't that make the whole thing self-defeating?

They also frequently believe that authority is necessary to keep people in check. This is also untrue. People who want to hurt others will not be stopped by authority. People who do not want to hurt others are not being stopped by authority. Removing authority will not turn a peaceful, married father of three into a theif. And any authority short of omniscient cannot stop a dediated killer from killing.

I've also heard an arguement about liability. Supposedly, without a central authority, nobody would be held liable. This is untrue and backwards. With a central authority, nobody in the central authority is held liable. With no authority, everyone can hold anyone else liable for a tort or breech of contract or use of violence or whatever. Only under central authority do we get such bullshit as "Sovereign Immunity".

So no. Authority is not "necessary". The moment you try to apply it, it starts contradicting itself. It's not only unnecessary, it's absurd. Stop believing this stupid rhetoric.
[url="http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2006/12/arguement-against-anarchy-2.html"]
Source[/url]]]> <![CDATA[I love my country for all its goodness, and its faults.]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=161 Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:49:30 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=161
Quote:America may not be showing its glory colors lately, but it is my home, and I love my country for all its goodness, and its faults.
]]>
Quote:America may not be showing its glory colors lately, but it is my home, and I love my country for all its goodness, and its faults.
]]> <![CDATA[Why all drugs should be legal]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=162 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:51:28 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=162 Why All Drugs Should be Legal
  1. The war on drugs does not stop drug usage. That much is obvious from society today.
    Government cannot even keep drugs out of the jails, let alone in society at large. The demand for humans to experience drugs will not and cannot be extinguished.
  2. The war on drugs drives the price of drugs up around 6000-7000%, leading to increased home invasions from addicts wanting a fix. Contrary to common belief, most drug users can hold down a job. With free market prices, many low income wages would be sufficent to support a drug habit.
  3. Who gives you the right to tell someone what to put in their body? Are they directly harming anyone by smoking a joint?
  4. Over half of the prison population is there due to drugs. Prisoners that we the citizens have to pay for, around $50,000 a year.
    This also means rapists and killers, people who actually directly harm others, don't spend as long in jail because they are full of harmless stoner's.
  5. The demand for drugs is never going to go away. By making them illegal, you create gangs. Gangs only come about due to something being illegal. Gambling, prostitution, drugs, these services or products, if they are make illegal, will spawn real crime, like killing and stealing.
    The people who will offer drugs on the black market will be the ones willing to kill, to steal.
    Also, the black market means prices skyrocket, because a) the black market is smaller, therefore less competition and b) dealers take a risk providing this product, and want more compensation.
    By allowing only these 'bad' people access to the distribution of drugs, you are funneling money to these people.
  6. The only way to stop drugs is education. And even then, the best education is experience. I'm not condoning widespread drug use however.
    Another problem with the War on Drugs is the propaganda that replaces real drug information. How can an agency that prohibits marijuana use give a balanced education about it?
  7. Illegal drugs makes them less safe. I would trust a pharmaceutical company, with their reputation on the line, and with good safety controls. to make my heroin over some junkie who is probably high himself.
I am not condoning drugs. If I could, I would flip a switch and make them go away. But I can't.

Government banning or restricting anything, except one citizen using force on another, always has unintended consequences.

I do know for a fact, that the drug dealers, the smart ones, love drugs being illegal. They are probably the biggest supporters of it. Well, maybe the crooked cops that get payed off at the border love it more.

[/url][url=http://adam-green.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-all-drugs-should-be-legal.html]Source]]> Why All Drugs Should be Legal
  1. The war on drugs does not stop drug usage. That much is obvious from society today.
    Government cannot even keep drugs out of the jails, let alone in society at large. The demand for humans to experience drugs will not and cannot be extinguished.
  2. The war on drugs drives the price of drugs up around 6000-7000%, leading to increased home invasions from addicts wanting a fix. Contrary to common belief, most drug users can hold down a job. With free market prices, many low income wages would be sufficent to support a drug habit.
  3. Who gives you the right to tell someone what to put in their body? Are they directly harming anyone by smoking a joint?
  4. Over half of the prison population is there due to drugs. Prisoners that we the citizens have to pay for, around $50,000 a year.
    This also means rapists and killers, people who actually directly harm others, don't spend as long in jail because they are full of harmless stoner's.
  5. The demand for drugs is never going to go away. By making them illegal, you create gangs. Gangs only come about due to something being illegal. Gambling, prostitution, drugs, these services or products, if they are make illegal, will spawn real crime, like killing and stealing.
    The people who will offer drugs on the black market will be the ones willing to kill, to steal.
    Also, the black market means prices skyrocket, because a) the black market is smaller, therefore less competition and b) dealers take a risk providing this product, and want more compensation.
    By allowing only these 'bad' people access to the distribution of drugs, you are funneling money to these people.
  6. The only way to stop drugs is education. And even then, the best education is experience. I'm not condoning widespread drug use however.
    Another problem with the War on Drugs is the propaganda that replaces real drug information. How can an agency that prohibits marijuana use give a balanced education about it?
  7. Illegal drugs makes them less safe. I would trust a pharmaceutical company, with their reputation on the line, and with good safety controls. to make my heroin over some junkie who is probably high himself.
I am not condoning drugs. If I could, I would flip a switch and make them go away. But I can't.

Government banning or restricting anything, except one citizen using force on another, always has unintended consequences.

I do know for a fact, that the drug dealers, the smart ones, love drugs being illegal. They are probably the biggest supporters of it. Well, maybe the crooked cops that get payed off at the border love it more.

[/url][url=http://adam-green.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-all-drugs-should-be-legal.html]Source]]> <![CDATA[Discovery space shuttle launch]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=163 Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:27:32 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=163
]]>
]]> <![CDATA[Political quiz]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=164 Thu, 07 Dec 2006 03:30:51 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=164 Quote:Are you a Democrat, Republican, or a Redneck?
Here is a little test that will help you decide.

The answer can be found by posing the following question:


You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you.



You are carrying a Glock, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What do you do?





Democrat's Answer:



Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Is the man poor? Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack me? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing only me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.

AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!(gurgle)



................................................



Republican's Answer:



BANG!
...........................................





Redneck Answer:



BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....(sounds of reloading).



BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click



Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Golden Sabers?"



Son: "Dad! Can I shoot the next one!"



Wife: "You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!"
My personal addition:






Anarchist's Answer:


PAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPA! click thlick slapclick clacklack PAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPA! click thlick slapclick clacklack

Wife: BANG chickchick BANG chickchick BANG!]]> Quote:Are you a Democrat, Republican, or a Redneck?
Here is a little test that will help you decide.

The answer can be found by posing the following question:


You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you.



You are carrying a Glock, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What do you do?





Democrat's Answer:



Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Is the man poor? Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack me? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing only me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.

AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!(gurgle)



................................................



Republican's Answer:



BANG!
...........................................





Redneck Answer:



BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....(sounds of reloading).



BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click



Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Golden Sabers?"



Son: "Dad! Can I shoot the next one!"



Wife: "You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!"
My personal addition:






Anarchist's Answer:


PAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPA! click thlick slapclick clacklack PAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPA! click thlick slapclick clacklack

Wife: BANG chickchick BANG chickchick BANG!]]> <![CDATA[Lmfao!]]> http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=165 Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:04:22 -0600 http://www.teeninfidels.com/showthread.php?tid=165 http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/AV/babxmas.mov]]> http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/AV/babxmas.mov]]>