• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Too Much Policing in Black Neighborhoods

Really? Care to back that up with sources? Also, it is meaningless and absurd to use "exponentially" to compare two data points.

You are unaware of the number of people who die and who have serious illness directly related to smoking, even second hand?
If so you have no business discussing this issue.

Huh? Your claim was not that a lot of people die or have serious illness related to smoking. Your claim was that cigarettes were "exponentially" (whatever you mean by it, presumably "much") more dangerous than crack. And you have not even begun trying to justify that claim. Care to try again?
And let me illustrate something to you. A lot more people die slipping in the shower than die climbing Mt. Everest. But that does not mean taking a shower is more dangerous than climbing Mt. Everest.
 
Sex work is a complex question,
More complex than legalization of all drugs, which you seem to support?

largely because while I think it CAN be ethical, the current organization of the sex industry is hopelessly terrible, as is the abomination which is neo-victorian sexual mores.
The reason being is that it is illegal and stigmatized. Also, during actual Victorian times sex work was at least legal in much of US. I would call it "neo-Puritan" rather than "neo-Victorian".

I would fully support full legalization IFF we could develop a system of oversight and support which would enable people doing the work to receive all the profit,
Why? Person doing the work should receive all the profit iff they are in the business for themselves. But if they are part of a brothel or agency then they by necessity should not receive all the profit. It's like any other profession. If a plumber works for a plumbing company he does not receive all the profit either. So why should sex work be treated differently? Of course, it should be up to the individual sex workers to decide whether to work for themselves or not.

however I am hopeful of a near future where questions of the ethics of sex work are sidestepped by clever applications of science and engineering.
Do you mean sex bots? Like with our dependence on oil, I think you hopelessly lack the idea of the time scales necessary.
 
You are unaware of the number of people who die and who have serious illness directly related to smoking, even second hand?
If so you have no business discussing this issue.

Huh? Your claim was not that a lot of people die or have serious illness related to smoking. Your claim was that cigarettes were "exponentially" (whatever you mean by it, presumably "much") more dangerous than crack. And you have not even begun trying to justify that claim. Care to try again?
And let me illustrate something to you. A lot more people die slipping in the shower than die climbing Mt. Everest. But that does not mean taking a shower is more dangerous than climbing Mt. Everest.

You have no serious point.

Find one and I will respond.

Millions of people die every year from cigarette related deaths.

Thousands from cocaine.

Millions is thousands raised to an exponent.

You learned something.
 
Huh? Your claim was not that a lot of people die or have serious illness related to smoking. Your claim was that cigarettes were "exponentially" (whatever you mean by it, presumably "much") more dangerous than crack. And you have not even begun trying to justify that claim. Care to try again?
And let me illustrate something to you. A lot more people die slipping in the shower than die climbing Mt. Everest. But that does not mean taking a shower is more dangerous than climbing Mt. Everest.

You have no serious point.

Find one and I will respond.

Millions of people die every year from cigarette related deaths.

Thousands from cocaine.

Millions is thousands raised to an exponent.

You learned something.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-14-minutes-alcoholic-drink-cost-7-hours.html
 
You have no serious point.
Find one and I will respond.
LMAO!

Millions of people die every year from cigarette related deaths.Thousands from cocaine.
That's because many more people use cigarettes than cocaine. But let's ignore that and pretend that climbing Mt. Everest is very safe because only a few people die climbing it each year. :banghead:

Millions is thousands raised to an exponent.
Thousands is also millions raised to an exponent. So what? You are still using the word "exponentially" wrong. Exponential functions have the independent variable in the exponent. f(t)=e-kt is an example of an exponential function. f(x)=x2 is not, even if it involves an exponent. Consequently, "exponentially" is used to describe relationships that can be described using exponential functions, such as exponential growth or exponential decay. It is not used when comparing two values! I hope you leaned something today.

You learned something.
Actually I have not, since you are wrong on all counts.
 
Last edited:
Calling bullshit on the claim that drinking two drinks a day costs you 23 years of life. Especially since there are studies that say that there are health benefits from alcohol consumption. And since when is somebody who drinks moderately an "alcoholic"?
I believe they assumed more-less worst case scenarios in their estimates. I understand it's almost always the case of heavy drugs and smoking, less so for drinking.
 
More complex than legalization of all drugs, which you seem to support?
Yes, much more complex. Drugs are a simple matter to legalize; educate children about the real risks of drugs, place taxes on the sale of those drugs earmarked to offsetting average medical costs per capita incurred by users of those drugs, and it's done. Prostitutuon is vastly different in that the reality of the sex trade is one in which the part and parcel is often direct slavery, and worse still, the slavery is generally tied to the sacrifice of the slave's ability to enjoy the function of their genitals. It's a vastly sticky issue, largely because the demand generally vastly outstrips the supply, and since the system of supply hinges most often on desperation rather than choice, it is too problematic at this point to allow the vast bulk of the current infrastructure of the sex trade to remain.
largely because while I think it CAN be ethical, the current organization of the sex industry is hopelessly terrible, as is the abomination which is neo-victorian sexual mores.
The reason being is that it is illegal and stigmatized. Also, during actual Victorian times sex work was at least legal in much of US. I would call it "neo-Puritan" rather than "neo-Victorian".
at any rate, it doesn't matter what it is called, merely that it is a result of a toxic culture, and the problems associated with regulating a business which is perhaps hopelessly tied to desperation and thus slavery. It is FAR less trivial than drug policy reform.
I would fully support full legalization IFF we could develop a system of oversight and support which would enable people doing the work to receive all the profit,
Why? Person doing the work should receive all the profit iff they are in the business for themselves. But if they are part of a brothel or agency then they by necessity should not receive all the profit. It's like any other profession. If a plumber works for a plumbing company he does not receive all the profit either. So why should sex work be treated differently? Of course, it should be up to the individual sex workers to decide whether to work for themselves or not.
Because as previously mentioned, prostitution is largely a matter of desperation rather than free choice. Because it scrapes the barest edge of consent, there needs to be oversight which restricts the share of money made by functionaries of the business. There are, as previously mentioned, nontrivial problems surrounding sex trade that are not present in the non-sex drug trade.
however I am hopeful of a near future where questions of the ethics of sex work are sidestepped by clever applications of science and engineering.
Do you mean sex bots? Like with our dependence on oil, I think you hopelessly lack the idea of the time scales necessary.
No. I do not mean sex bots necessarily. As it is, your understanding of the pace of technological advance is quite lacking. At any rate, there are a myriad of directions in which the solution could go that I am aware of currently, and I am sure my own list of potential solutions is far from exhaustive, everything from chemical to virtual, Although the easiest solution generally tends to be the one you already have at hand.

At any rate, I'm done with this prostitution red herring; prostitution is non-trivial to solve. Drug use is fairly straightforward. As to all the displaced judges, police officers, customs officials, and other 'drug warriors' they can suck a dick and get a real job. Perhaps sucking dicks, if we can iron out the kinks in the sex trade. Or maybe building solar plants.
 
Thousands is also millions raised to an exponent. So what? You are still using the word "exponentially" wrong.

I said exponentially MORE. And you do not have the capacities to tell me what is the right and wrong usage of anything.

You might have learned something else, if that is possible.
 

At any rate, the number of people harmed makes little to no difference so long as they are: 1.) Harming only themselves, 2.) Paying the costs for any future medical care they may need to the proportion that the average user of the drug would end up needing it, and 3.) Made aware of the nature of risks for which they are already paying.

There are notable exceptions to drug use legality that exist in the world, notably in the classes of drugs which "weaponize" people, of which PCP would be a potential example.

At any rate PCP is a very obscure drug with a small market; without the black market associated with the bulk of drugs we currently force into such markets, I doubt there would be a sufficient infrastructure for import and distribution that would allow popular use to continue.
 
Point?

Mine was about numbers of people harmed.

At any rate, the number of people harmed makes little to no difference so long as they are: 1.) Harming only themselves, 2.) Paying the costs for any future medical care they may need to the proportion that the average user of the drug would end up needing it, and 3.) Made aware of the nature of risks for which they are already paying.

There are notable exceptions to drug use legality that exist in the world, notably in the classes of drugs which "weaponize" people, of which PCP would be a potential example.

The point ultimately was, if we can live with legal cigarettes we can live with legal crack.

The harm from crack is not worth the harm that comes from trying to stop people from taking it.
 
Because as previously mentioned, prostitution is largely a matter of desperation rather than free choice. Because it scrapes the barest edge of consent, there needs to be oversight which restricts the share of money made by functionaries of the business. There are, as previously mentioned, nontrivial problems surrounding sex trade that are not present in the non-sex drug trade

Because they have a body people will pay to be with, they have a choice those who don't have such a body don't have. Forbidding them being a hooker is taking choice away from them; not adding choice. This isn't the barest edge of consent. The is explicit consent and payment. If I borrow your car you may say latter that I didn't have your permission. If I pay you to use your car, and you accept the money knowing what it is for, it is harder to say I didn't have your permission to drive it, right?

The only place I really see a lack of consent is when pimps get involved and force or coerce the sex worker. And that is where the current laws totally backfire, especially when making it a crime to buy sex. Now you've made the customers criminals so they wont' come forward and report anything questionable that they see. And with such laws we drive the sex trade underground, where we can't regulate it and where we can't keep people safe.
 
At any rate, the number of people harmed makes little to no difference so long as they are: 1.) Harming only themselves, 2.) Paying the costs for any future medical care they may need to the proportion that the average user of the drug would end up needing it, and 3.) Made aware of the nature of risks for which they are already paying.

I would agree with this, but point numbers 1, 2, and 3 are all questionable at best in many cases. You don't harm only yourself when you destroy yourself with drugs. You harm your family, anyone who relies on you, anyone who cares about you, and possibly children who are modeling after you. You don't pay the costs of all future medical care yourself, even if you live in the USA where there isn't universal health care. You still suck up medical resources and drive prices for them up through higher demand. And people are often NOT made aware of the nature of risks involved, both because they are not fully researched and because these drugs come from sources that don't provide much of a warranty.

A little pot isn't likely to hurt you all that much. But cocaine and other hard drugs can do some serious damage, both to you, and to those around you.
 
Thousands is also millions raised to an exponent. So what? You are still using the word "exponentially" wrong.

I said exponentially MORE. And you do not have the capacities to tell me what is the right and wrong usage of anything.

You might have learned something else, if that is possible.

It is still wrong usage of the word exponentially. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
 
Through the end of the day Friday, Chicago had seen 475 murders – just six less than in all of last year, according to police department statistics. The city has already exceeded last year’s total number of gun-related homicides, with 430.

As violence rises, an increasing number of shootings and murders are going unsolved. Through 28 August, the police department had only made arrests in 73 of the nearly 2,000 non-fatal shooting incidents so far this year – or just under 4%, according to a department spokesman.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/04/chicago-gun-violence-unsolved-murders-deadly-year

With the continued righteous efforts of Black Lives Matter, we can get that 4% to 0%.

Two thoughts.

First would there be such violence if property in the area were in the hands of the residents rather than absentee land lords.

Second, there have been 35000 murders in Chicago over the last 50 years. That's 700 a year. Obviously last year's murder rate was way down from the average so more this year is just, uh, regression to the mean.

Third gratis comment. How about putting part of the ownership of every property in S and W Chicago in the hands of residents and then pulling back on enforcement of window breaking and vandalism. Any guesses about what would happen?
 
I said exponentially MORE. And you do not have the capacities to tell me what is the right and wrong usage of anything.

You might have learned something else, if that is possible.

It is still wrong usage of the word exponentially. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

If something is exponentially greater than something else it means it is at least 10 times greater. Maybe 100 times greater. Maybe 1000 times, and so on.

It is something any third grader could comprehend.
 
If something is exponentially greater than something else it means it is at least 10 times greater. Maybe 100 times greater. Maybe 1000 times, and so on.
No, it does not. The expression you want is "order or magnitude greater" or "x orders of magnitude greater".
d1Z-thats-not-how-it-works-thats-not-how-any-of-this-works.jpg

It is something any third grader could comprehend.
Are you smarter than a third grader? I am not so sure ...
 
Argument by cartoon.

As expected from somebody unable to make out the incredibly difficult:

"Exponentially greater"

You do know what the word "greater" means?
 
Argument by cartoon.
Cartoon? Meme actually, and since I am talking to a mental 3rd grader ...

As expected from somebody unable to make out the incredibly difficult:

"Exponentially greater"
It's not the issue of me unable to make it out. It's an issue of it not meaning what you think it means.

You do know what the word "greater" means?
That is not the issue. You are confusing "exponentially" with "greater by orders of magnitude" which you should be using. Why are you so resistant to learning something?
 
Back
Top Bottom