Lockout Casualty
-
Posts
2,610 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Lockout Casualty
-
-
Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:
According to whom. Smart people like yourself. Too bad people like yourself couldn’t accomplish something with all those smarts and stop living off the backs of others. I have so much more respect for a person that contributes to society regardless of there beliefs than a free loader like yourself. I mean honestly. How much validity do you think your opinion has when you provide zero benefit to the country, can anyone really take you seriously, I sure can’t.
Give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day
teach a man to fish, he’ll eat for the rest of his life.
Give a man someone else’s fish and he’ll vote NDP for life.
Well alright then...
-
5 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:
See this is my point exactly. Not one single quote of stating hate. At best they have a unverified quote from Facebook messenger they’re basing things off of. And For the most part the people they are labeling terrible human brought up an opinion on something. Guess what Christians, Muslims, mormans all belief acts of homosexuality is a sin. That is there beliefs. They don’t hate the individuals they hate the acts. No different than acts of sex before marriage or stealing or committing adultery, the acts are all sins. If someone stated there religious beliefs people labeled them disgusting humans and should never have a say in life. If the left can’t see the hypocrisy in there approach I don’t know what to tell you.
Today’s logic is If your opinion doesn’t match my own, I scream and yell to shut you up. Hate to say it but shutting up a persons opinion simply becauseyou disagree with it ais Being fascist.
Either way. Since NDP knows that can’t win on their terrible policies and failed economic proposals they started flinging mud in hopes to change people votes. But people aren’t stupid. They understand there’s more at stake then having a popularity contest.
An NDP candidate John archer states to “vote as if you skin colour wasn’t white” and not a whisper from the left. That’s totally ok i guess. Or the two MLA currently under investigation for sexual assault. I’m not surprise progresspress didn’t cover those ones. lol.
Some opinions don't have place in modern society anymore. It matters not that one's backward religion or generations of stupid have fostered that opinion, only that the opinion itself is wrong and abhorrent.
For example, regardless of one's religion/whathaveyouforexcuse, it's wrong to suggest people of different races shouldn't get married.
Nobody is stifling opinion because they don't agree with it. You can GTFO with this crap, I don't think anyone but simpletons are buying it, but those already voted Kenny in early voting.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, canuckistani said:
Unfortunately I don't have the time to really get into this post, but I will bring up a couple of things briefly. Today, most people are well aware that heroin and other hard drugs are an express train to destroying one's life. This is not something that will change with legalization, or whatever method of controlling substances gets implemented. For example, I can easily access heroin that's not laced, and have been able to since high school nearly 20 years ago. Same goes for many people, especially before fentanyl came on the scene. Just because it becomes legal does not mean scores of people will go out and start trying heroin, meth, etc. Portugal has demonstrated that usage rates do not increase, long term. Also that rates of HIV infection, OD deaths, and drug-related crime drop drastically.
To be honest, I'm unclear if the studies accounted for legal status, however, if light of evidence that drug use rate does not increase, it may not be that pertinent to the discussion. Whether 10% of the population gets addicted to legal heroin or illegal, they will get addicted either way. One thing prohibition fails at is actually limiting supply. As long as demand is there, we'll always have this problem. Also, these drugs affect the user differently. Alcohol makes people rowdy, violent, inhibits decision making, etc. Heroin users aren't capable of operating a vehicle at all, much less driving like a drunk. Ergo, their societal impact may not increase at all, and with lower crime, et al, it may actually decrease with regulation.
As well, I think people that abuse opioids (aside from pharmaceutical addicts) are a special breed. Last week my friend's friend was buried after ODing on fentanyl. I never met the guy, but I thought he used laced drugs. Turns out he was purposefully injecting fentanyl, "chasing the dragon". There are people who will try anything, but they are far and few between the people who have no interest in these drugs. I'll never try heroin, whether it's legal or not. I'm sure neither will you, or canuckistani. Neither will most other people. So I think it's a misplaced fear.
Canuckistani and I have already discussed the cultural aspect, so I won't get into that again. I do agree that many people aren't giving their kids the time they need. Also, I haven't researched this much, but non-resident father involvement is associated with better outcomes for the child, although I'm unsure if the outcomes are the same, or better or worse, than married/co-parents. That is to say, parents may not live together, but if they're involved, it may drastically reduce negative issues associated with single-parent households.
Anyway, I'm grateful for the good discussion. Cheers!
1. Its a myth that prohibition fails. Prohibition, by nature of the term, is a deterrence based methodology. For it to work, the deterrence has to be strong enough. Prohibition has a stunning level of success in China, Indonesia, Malaysia and most of the middle east. They have 10 times less people per capita addicted to Heroin. Why ? Because their deterrence is a minimum 20 year prison sentence for usage.
You cannot say a deterrence based system doesn't work,when the deterrence provided is insufficient. Its like saying threatening people's safety doesn't work for getting beat up, when your threat is 'if you beat me up, i will throw marshmallows at you'. Upgrade it to ' if you beat me up, i will shoot you' and it will have a significantly greater efficacy.2. Involvement of non-resident parent in the kids life has a better positive outcome on children's lives than single parenthood,but still does not make up the qualitative gap with couples raising their kids under one roof. This is because of the net supervised time per kid per week is greater when both parents live in the same domicile, than separate domiciles.
I thought your position was that western world's drug problems are due to our family culture, as evidenced by this post:
QuoteIf you argue that opiods are the same dosage threat to species homo sapiens as alcohol, i am sorry, you are COMPLETELY OUT TO LUNCH.
Maybe the true issue would be to be instilled an anti-drug culture SINCE YOU ARE A KID IN A FAMILY. oh wait, i forgot. Western world doesnt believe in family values anymore and parents are just exes of each other who think raising kids is sharing babysitting time and costs. No wonder you guys have such a bad drug problem.
As well, the countries you're mentioning have a rather abysmal human rights record. With that, I would rather err on the side of human rights and individual libertarianism than authoritarian, dictatorial regimes.
I am not an expert on eastern drug policy at all, so I can't say much more than that.
-
6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:
the concept does shift the tax burden more to consumption, which in many ways is a fairer system. E.g., rich people who buy more stuff, end up paying a lot more of the tax burden. I don't think you'd need anything like a 30% GST.
I do think there is some calculation where low income people aren't hurt by it, and people that consume more pay more.
Another way to ensure that the 1% don't take advantage of it is to make sure that capital gains are taxed appropriately.
But, I need to see it worked out as well.
Considering every point of GST is worth about 3 billion (last I recall reading, after Harper cut GST twice, maybe a little more now), 30% may not be exact, but it may not be far off from the truth. If you look at the options presented by FI, either everyone pays less or lower income Canadians make up the shortfall by paying more tax under the new scheme, which I find unpalatable. I'm unclear if the Libertarian party would change corporate taxes or capital gains, so maybe increasing those would make up the shortfall. Doubtful, but I can't rule it out. Also, I am not in favor of raising corporate tax either.
I just don't see the math working out without either a drastic increase in real wages across the board, a progressive tax rate that taxes high income earners more, or a very high VAT. One thing is for sure, this country needs more tax revenue, not less. Efficiency would alleviate some of this need, but I think we're too far gone to make up the shortfall by firing redundant bureaucrats.
-
Must say I'm entirely unimpressed with the Fraser Institute's take on the matter. From using Hong Kong and Channel Islands as examples, to complete lack of citation of contradicting studies, to its conclusions that in nearly every case study lower incomes' tax burden goes up, while higher incomes' burden is reduced. In only one case does the lowest earners pay less tax than today, however in the same study the highest income earners also pay less. And only one other study shows a drop across every income range. Most cases show highest income earners' tax burden drop by ~33% (give or take another 5%, in one case more than halving their burden), while lowest earners see their burden increase by as much as 5000% (Case 1), and on average by about 40%.
To me, it clearly shows a shift of tax burden from individuals earning 40-50k and up to individuals earning 30-40k and less.
Also, being a big proponent of VAT, I wonder what GST rate would need to be set to account of the shortfall in tax revenue from income taxes (and I suppose corporate taxes, capital gains, etc.) Would Canadian society be willing to pay 30% GST to have a lower, flat tax rate?
I didn't read thoroughly through the paper, so maybe I am mistaken, but my kid is up from her nap and I can't dedicate any more time to it at the moment. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-
1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:
on tax stuff I have to trust people a lot smarter than me on the issue. This is a good article on it: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/FlatTaxTxt.pdf
Fair enough. I tend to take anything from the Fraser Institute with a heaping pile of salt, but I'll check it out. Thank you.
Flat tax rate instantly makes me think of this guy,
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:
I think that could work, you would still need to have programs for lower income people and make sure the top 1/2% don't claim they make $1 per year, but a flat tax on its own doesn't negate that. There's a lot of weaselling that goes on with taxation.
I would be very interested in how you think that would work, if you have the time to waste. As I understand it, biggest building blocks of this country were implemented during much higher marginal tax rates than today. This was also before out tax code got overly complicated. And before all the tax breaks and boutique tax credits that have been building up for decades. Meaning that the marginal rate was more representative of the real tax paid then than it is today. As well, our infrastructure is in dire need of upgrading, and continues to fall behind, requiring large financial investment just to bring it up to date. Not to mention the fairness aspect of a flat tax rate.
To put it bluntly, I would love to read you square this peg into a round hole.
-
Spoiler18 hours ago, Kragar said:
Putting your comments in spoilers, just to save some space.
My point wasn't about destroying the body faster either, although I guess it could be interpreted that way. With a large majority of heroin users (over 2/3rds, per the CDC link I provided) admitting to also abusing/being addicted, that's highly significant. Alcohol is nowhere near that bad. I checked that same report regarding coke, and was surprised... the numbers for abuse/addiction were much lower, similar to alcohol, with 5-6 times more coke users than heroin.
You often mention societal impact. Could what drives alcohol's societal impact being higher (which I'm not sure on, but I'll accept it for now) be due to the vast number of consumers? I'd guess that for every heroin user here in the US, there are about 100 who drink alcohol. Maybe I'm not clear what you mean about that.
I don't know many who have tried heroin or coke, and those few are up in Canada. Of course, there may be others who have tried and I just don't know. I knew a fair amount who smoked weed back home, so it's not like I hung out in an ultra-clean crowd. Of the two I know for sure, last I heard, their lives weren't great, with one being divorced, and the other quite depressed. That was a couple decades ago, no idea how they are now. Alcohol was my vice of choice, having reasonable access in my mid-teens. I worried at one point in my 20s, after taking a survey, whether I had a "problem". Successfully going dry for 6 months with no trouble cured that concern. But, I get where you're coming from with the hangover.
Legalizing heroin, and dropping the price, is scary. It might cut down on thefts since the fixes are cheaper, so it is not without benefits, as you point out. But since heroin is more addictive and far easier to OD than alcohol, IMO the health costs per user will accelerate for heroin vs alcohol users. Also, how much of a "high" does a person need? I don't mean it in a judgmental way at all, but more in the sense of the out-of-pocket costs to reach the desired high. A couple beers/drinks is enough for most people to relax. A few more will make someone quite "happy", and a few more can seriously inebriate some people (obviously, tolerance levels vary over a number of factors). $10 to $20 at a liquor store can get one pretty happy or even drunk. I'm guessing it costs more for a similar level of inebriation from heroin or coke? Since our stomachs give us some warning when we drink too much, is there a similar mechanism for drugs? If you legalize harder drugs, and are somehow able to keep prices in line, I find it easy to imagine people over-consuming drugs as opposed to alcohol.
Overall, is a hangover such a bad thing? Sure, you can feel like crap for a day or so after a drinking binge, but will that make over-consumption so appealing next time?
You are clearly correct about good families and broken homes. I don't even know whether one is more favored than another, when it comes to where more addicts come from. I could see "good homes" actually contributing more, since those kids would have access to more money to get started on heavier stuff. You are also right on the success (or lack thereof) on prohibition. It would take more thinking on my part to come around to legalizing as a reasonable solution, though. Studies linking increased mental issues (schizophrenia, for example) with weed users, in the wake of legalization, is not comforting. Will adding harder drugs to the mix make it even worse?
My point regarding culture was more at the personal level. The tendency to focus students' success on passing standardized tests rather than being good students and teaching good life skills (like personal finances). Couple this with a misguided focus on "equality", and it appears students are increasingly less ready to survive as adults; expectations are high, and the world tends to not measure up. Personal debt is getting out of control for too many people. Our shorter attention spans and demand for instant gratification also contribute. How much does our increased collective disconnection from the real world impact our brains? Families, broken or not, spend less time together, so kids often end up getting more and more input from people who don't care about the kids' best interests. This is something that has gotten worse over recent decades. Single parents who work, or when both parents work, means it takes extra effort to make time for the kids. Some can handle it, while others can't. Yet stay-at-home parents are often looked down upon, when in fact when they can afford it, having a parent stay home should be encouraged. I'm sure I could add to this list, but I think there's enough here to chew on.
Basically, I wonder how much of this contributes to the added need for a high. Couple that with some of the family issues others have mentioned, where we live in a society that praises single parents (and governments that encourage them) despite the added pressure on many of the children involved.
When it comes to everything here, I don't exclude alcohol from the problem. I just feel that heroin especially is much worse.
Thanks for making some great points, and sharing some personal input.
Unfortunately I don't have the time to really get into this post, but I will bring up a couple of things briefly. Today, most people are well aware that heroin and other hard drugs are an express train to destroying one's life. This is not something that will change with legalization, or whatever method of controlling substances gets implemented. For example, I can easily access heroin that's not laced, and have been able to since high school nearly 20 years ago. Same goes for many people, especially before fentanyl came on the scene. Just because it becomes legal does not mean scores of people will go out and start trying heroin, meth, etc. Portugal has demonstrated that usage rates do not increase, long term. Also that rates of HIV infection, OD deaths, and drug-related crime drop drastically.
To be honest, I'm unclear if the studies accounted for legal status, however, if light of evidence that drug use rate does not increase, it may not be that pertinent to the discussion. Whether 10% of the population gets addicted to legal heroin or illegal, they will get addicted either way. One thing prohibition fails at is actually limiting supply. As long as demand is there, we'll always have this problem. Also, these drugs affect the user differently. Alcohol makes people rowdy, violent, inhibits decision making, etc. Heroin users aren't capable of operating a vehicle at all, much less driving like a drunk. Ergo, their societal impact may not increase at all, and with lower crime, et al, it may actually decrease with regulation.
As well, I think people that abuse opioids (aside from pharmaceutical addicts) are a special breed. Last week my friend's friend was buried after ODing on fentanyl. I never met the guy, but I thought he used laced drugs. Turns out he was purposefully injecting fentanyl, "chasing the dragon". There are people who will try anything, but they are far and few between the people who have no interest in these drugs. I'll never try heroin, whether it's legal or not. I'm sure neither will you, or canuckistani. Neither will most other people. So I think it's a misplaced fear.
Canuckistani and I have already discussed the cultural aspect, so I won't get into that again. I do agree that many people aren't giving their kids the time they need. Also, I haven't researched this much, but non-resident father involvement is associated with better outcomes for the child, although I'm unsure if the outcomes are the same, or better or worse, than married/co-parents. That is to say, parents may not live together, but if they're involved, it may drastically reduce negative issues associated with single-parent households.
Anyway, I'm grateful for the good discussion. Cheers!
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:
Suppose I am.
Maybe you should explain in detail the numbers to me...this way you and Joker of Surrey both can get a good laugh?
Suppose you borrow $1. The next day, you borrow another $10. You've effectively increased your debt by 1000%. Then you borrow another $10, increasing your debt by about 100%. Now you owe $21. You borrow another $10, which increases your debt by slightly less than 50%.
In other words,
$1 x 1000% = $10
$10 x 200% = $20
$20 x 150% = $30
Each increase is the same amount of money, but percent increase is drastically different. The bigger the sum you have on hand, the smaller the percent increase per dollar. Hope this helps.
-
9 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:
wow.... i actually agree with a lot of that platform. I think they're off in the rhubarb on health care, guns and foreign aid but I do agree on other points.
What do you think about the 15% flat tax rate?
-
2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:
well lockout is a former soviet so who knows.
Yes.. former.. orange is new red, comrade.
-
2 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:
Depends on which version of Superman. There’s the alternate version where the Kal-El’s rocket ship lands in the Soviet Union instead of Kansas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman:_Red_Son
We could sure use him when I was harvesting potatoes in the village when I was 8! Now I'm having a flashback, except commie Superman is in it.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:
Sure. Lol.
Using proper words and grammar go a long way to at least not appearing stupid.
-
27 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:
Gurn my buddy I do not want them to win I just want them to do good.
Superman does good, you want them to do well.
-
40 minutes ago, canuckistani said:
Yes, those would be a good start IMO. Just like we are teaching kids to explore their identities and such, we should also be teaching the kids that its a worthwhile persuit to want long term relationships with realistic goals and its positives on raising children.
I am not saying anything against promiscuity or going through relationships till you find one that works. I am however, saying that today's society of relationships have become far more self-centered than in the past ( or in any other human society), where the 'what do i get out of this' is the end-all, be-all of relationships rather than ' whats in it for me, her and the kids in the future maybe?'. I am also saying that this whole era of 'we are breaking up after 4 years because for the last 5 months we havn't had much fun, we didn't go out much for date nights' etc is a devaluation of relationship goals and its reflective in our society.
What am i trying to assign to families ? The simple fact that single parenthood fails in every measurable benchmark towards welfare - material & emotional- of the children raised in it. This is widely documented and evidenced. Families staying together has a decisive positive effect on the children of the families.
What is ironic, is that the western culture became the strongest, wealthiest and most innovative on the back of strong family values and strong, almost ruthless meritocratic ideals - all ideals that are eroding over the past few decades. The saying 'Rome wasn't built in a day' also has a corollary - Rome wasn't destroyed in a day either. Societies, barring natural calamities or epidemics, don't just collapse into a heap overnight or over one generation due to bad choices too. Success is like motion - even after you stop being successful, the inertia of success still leads to more success. But trouble is, without acceleration ( ie, continuous re-enforcement), inertia eventually comes to a stop and as is often with the case, rolls back.
This has already happened to many societies, including western society, in the past. I think we are going through a phase where the strong core of our social structure is being hollowed out and right now, we are existing on pure inertia of our past success. But that momentum, is fast running out.
New technology may not. But new social paradigms may do it. As i said, social collapse is not just a question of technological conflict, it also has elements of social change leading to social collapse. The book 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond touches on this topically, for eg.
If there is empiric evidence that children from broken families have lower success in education, financial freedom and access, then it is empiric fact to say that it is a regress, not progress.
I am interested to know, why cheap childcare or social programs are of a higher priority than just re-entrenching what works and has worked for humanity for the last 10,000 years and is still working - family values. Why wouldn't we want school curriculums to re-enforce family values, the objectives of long term partnerships and the benefits towards children from it ??
All things being equal, how a species raises its children is of fundamental impact to a species, from an objective,biological & evolutionary perspective. In short, it is messing with the species on the most basic level. Other species have shown tremendous change - mostly negative - when their child rearing strategies are messed with or changed radically ( mostly due to human interference or controlled experiments). Just because we are the most adaptive species and most resilient one on this planet, doesn't make us impervious to the risks - most resilient, most adaptive does not equate to absolute adaptability and absolute resiliency. We are not Tardigardes, for example and we never will be.
I'll preface this post by saying that I won't be replying as thoroughly, if at all going forward, as I've spent all morning and afternoon on CDC, thinking through your and my own posts. And I'm grateful for the exchange. Just time to focus on my daughter.
In my experience, people in long term relationships don't tend to break up lightly. I don't know the inner workings of these people's relations, but so far as my anecdotal evidence has led me to believe, it's because they stop fighting against the current. Meaning that they've struggled to be together for a long time already, and finally recognize that their relationship is doomed. Typically, these relationships, ones that last for years before dying, start when people are young. People grow and become different people, I don't think it's healthy to stay together when both have grown into people neither wants to be with. I think you're over-simplifying why people break up after years together, almost to the point of devaluing these people's individuality and feelings.
You're right that single parenthood does worse than the united family in ensuring a child's success, but I would question the why. Being a relatively recent trend, possibly our society hasn't adjusted yet to the new paradigm. Possibly the effects of this multi-generational change haven't cascaded down yet. As well, as you said to Rup earlier regarding institutional racism, one cannot unequivocally say, based of family structure alone who will fail and who will succeed. To me, painting all with this brush is premature.
What I don't see is our society collapsing. You see the core as being hollowed out, whereas I see it as changing into something else. I don't know if ultimately you or I will be correct, and I don't think either of us will live long enough to know. I have divorced friends who are both heavily involved in the child's life and ones whose parents are together but neither really takes an interest. I think it ultimately falls to parents as individuals in how successful their child will become.
I wouldn't say social programs are of higher priority to me, rather they are the means to alleviate the pressure on single parents today and to aid in their children's development and future success. It is an immediate action that can foster more desired outcomes. Ultimately, both are a means to an end - having children grow into successful adults. I am entirely unopposed to a combination of the two approaches.
Lastly, I feel a lot of your concerns regarding collapse will be put to rest once we become a space faring species. We could think of all sorts of ways to break and fix our societies on Earth, and all it will take is one space rock big enough and it will all be for naught.
Cheers to a good talk.
-
12 minutes ago, canuckistani said:
You mean to say i am the only human being capable of learning from my mistakes and teaching my kids 'don't do what i did - that was an epic mistake' ?!?
The remedy may not be straightforward, but re-entrenchment of realistic relationship goals, family values, etc. is a social endavor, not just piece-mealed to a particular adult figure in their lives.
Who said anything about just family breakups ? I said about all breakups. And you are seriously saying that people who date today, don't breakup (or conversely, come together) over trivial matters that are non-conductive to producing long-term relationships ?!?
False. There have been several social and technological changes in a society that has doomed said society. Yes, not the species, because prior to 50 years ago, human species was not very interconnected. Which makes the stakes higher today. A crap idea can travel across oceans in minutes and germinate, just like a good one can.
Ergo, doomed ideas in the past that doomed a particular civilization or all within its reach, has a much wider scope of impact in the interconnected world today.There is always a balance of liberalism and conservatism that plays out in every single social change scenario. Right now there are liberals who advocate ' you can be any gender you choose' and conservatives who advocate 'BS, you are what you are'. That is the push-pull of liberalism vis a vis conservatism. Progress is inevitable in technological realms, but equating social change as progress is a value judgement that is not always clear-cut. Is it progress to have more broken families than 100 years ago or is it regress ? most would classify it as regress.
The overwhelming majority of people are not interested in being first at test-driving anything- be it trip to mars, a new type of car, new vaccine, new social order, etc etc. Because we are ultimately animals and like all animals, our PRIME GOAL is to survive and propagate ourselves. This leads to the natural balance of ' sounds about right, but risky - you do it, if it works out for you, i will follow' mentality. This 'you first to the new tech/paradigm' is a hallmark, dominant feature of species homo sapiens that most of us conform to, in most scenarios.
And yes, you hit the nail on the head - you have blind faith. I don't. you have blind faith in our ability to adapt and overcome nomatter what, i don't have such faith, because i know from history that there have been several societies that doomed itself with technological or social change they were not ready for. The scope was smaller due to isolation of humanity due to distances & travel technologies, but that is no longer the case. Ergo, if anything, history of human success and failure suggests that we are in a much more high risk/high reward scenario with human future than ever before.
No, that is not what I mean. I'm saying that if people were to learn and pass on the lessons you so want them to, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The reality is that people move forward with their lives and adapt to their circumstances, and in the process teach their kids to do the same. If they come to realize they shouldn't have split, or that being together is more important than whatever it was pushing them apart, they will teach their kids as much. If they don't, they won't. I don't know what panacea you're imagining that will usher such a cultural change, but I don't see it. Maybe government push to promote family unity via tax breaks? Educational programming for young families? I haven't heard a single suggestion while we've been debating.
I'm sorry if I was mistaken, but I thought we were discussing family unity, not how people go about finding a partner in the first place. I don't have any issues with people going through relationships until they find one they can stay with long term. Not every relationship has to culminate in a child and growing old together. Are you saying people shouldn't be so promiscuous? I'm not really sure what you're getting at. This is nothing new in human society, people engaged in relationships and broke them before today's "throw-away culture". More, I'm not really sure what goal you're trying to assign families. What issue are you attempting to solve by reinforcing family unity? What, ultimately is better about being together than not? Western society has a culture you look down on, but it has also become the wealthiest, strongest, innovative. I don't know what culture you're from and frankly I don't care, but don't pretend that your culture is somehow superior to western because families stay together.
It's a fair point to suggest that our inter-connectivity raises the stakes, but due to cultural differences and priorities, I still don't see it all that likely that a new technology will doom or species. Not that it's impossible, I just don't think it's likely.
I also agree with you that not all social change can be considered progress, but perhaps that's the wrong word. I think sticking with "change" is adequate for our discussion. As such, I wouldn't say than broken families is regress, but change in family structure. There are benefits to family unity, but not to the point that I would suggest our society is regressing. It's just changing. And we're adapting to account for these changes. As you said earlier, single parents are being stretched too thin is a consequence of this change. This is why we should be implementing cheap childcare, social programs, etc. Ultimately, I wouldn't say one family structure is always better than the other. All things being equal, I don't see our species dying out because our family unit changed to predominately single parents.
-
7 minutes ago, canuckistani said:
well adults are mostly unfixable but children are like clay- they can be molded much better. The lessons are for the future generations. For the children we bring into the world or raise.
Everything in life is a risk to reward ratio of assessment. This is what makes us gamble, take a risk, stay put, a lion to chase a deer or stay put, etc. While i agree that people who are incompatible and hate each other shouldn't stay together and teaches the children that its okay to accept toxicity, we have to balance that with what @Alflives also pointed out - fostering a 'this isnt fun, i am out' at the drop of a hat, after 6 months of not going out on 'date nights' is equally disastrous in the long term. Kids need to be taught that its okay to not be perfect to each other and making things work between two people who are having difficulties but still care for each other and want the same outcome is a worthwhile persuit. The use-and-throw culture we live in, is a compounding damage equally as bad as putting up with a physically abusive alcoholic lunatic.
Yes, our society is changing and change is our name. But not all change is good and not all change humanity has fostered is good. This is where the balance of liberalism's desire for change and conservative's desire for status quo comes into play. History is replete with social changes that helped humanity spectacularly as well as doomed a culture spectacularly. So to have blind faith in change and our ability to adjust and thrive no-matter what, is egoistic naivity, not rooted in actual reading of history.Who is going to teach these children? Parents in bad relationships? They can only teach how to stay in a bad relationship. Parents in loveless relationships? They can only teach how to stay together for the kids, but not how to be happy. Parents that have split up? They can only show how to leave a bad relationship. So who is going to teach the children of these parents, ones who weren't born into happy, loving families? Their neighbours? Teachers? Are we going to remove children from single parents and give them to happy families to adopt? Like I said, I understand the problem you're presenting, but I'm not seeing any remotely feasible solutions.
Furthermore, equating a family breaking up to getting a new iPhone only exposes a superiority complex. Also, it's incredibly judgmental. For a data guy, I wonder what sample size you're using, n=3? Seriously?
Not all change is good, but none of the changes have ever spelled doom of our species, as you seem to be alluding to. There is no balance of liberalism and conservatism. There's the inevitable progress and the kicking and screaming to stay put. Maybe society will make a full circle back to strong family units in a century, maybe we'll go back even further to tribal ways. I don't know. I'm not one for valuing specific cultures over others, I couldn't care less if western culture dies out in the future, or if it dominates the planet. So long as our species prospers. I don't have blind faith in anything but humanity's (not any one culture's) ability to adapt and overcome.
-
4 minutes ago, Alflives said:
We have developed into a "throw away and replace with new" society. We used to fix stuff, and keep it for ever. Now, it's toss things to the curb, and get the newer shiny bobble.
Maybe that philosophy has filtered into marriage?
You continue to amaze me with how simplistic your worldview is.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, canuckistani said:
Or, it can be vehicle of fostering change and re-entrenchment of taking marriages and building families more seriously. Maybe it can lessen the sense of ' we don't have fun anymore, so lets divorce' mentality. Maybe it can change the 100% focus on personal fulfillment and look at family as a unit with asymetric but important stakeholders.
Like I said, if you have a plan to effect this change my support is fully behind you. My parents divorced because my dad wanted a daughter. He was also abusive, drinking, and self-centered. How do you fix that? I am of the opinion that if parents do not want to stay together, they shouldn't stay together. Remaining in an unhealthy relationship teaches a child that it is normal. Whether it's a physically or mentally abusive relationship, an unhappy one, or any mix of these and other aspects. An unhealthy understanding of relationships will do more compound damage through generations than having to raise children alone (and just because parents aren't living together does not mean they are not both involved in raising a child).
Our society is changing, our child rearing is changing. Change is something that humanity has undergone since we climbed down from the trees and ran through the Savannah. Rather than long for the days past, I would rather look forward. Humans are unique among animals in our intellect. There are many things we did as a first. There is no reason to think we can't adjust our social structure to accommodate these changes.
-
12 hours ago, riffraff said:
I’m confident you can make a point without coming across like a drama queen.
give it a go.
I'd rather wear a tiara and prance around like a queen than pretend the other poster's words were anything but ignorant and despicable.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Kragar said:
I'd like to challenge your statement about alcohol being as bad as heroin. If your talking about people who abuse either of them, you may well be right. But heroin is more addictive. 2/3rds of the users in the US report being addiction or abuse of heroin. At best, one in five are addicted to alcohol.
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/pubs/2018-cdc-drug-surveillance-report.pdf
https://www.alcohol.org/statistics-information/
Legalization does not get rid of illegal sources, either, especially when government is trying to tax it so much to help cover other costs. Dealers still sell weed in Colorado and other "legal" states, and one of the reasons for this is cost. Government taxation and dispensary overhead costs still have to be covered, things that dealers don't have (sure, they have other costs)
So, costs will still be high, so addicts will still steal our stuff. Overdoses may drop due to better product, as you claim, but will it reduce the addictive nature enough to matter? I doubt it.
As @canuckistani points out, the declining family culture in our countries is a factor that should not be ignored either.
You're right, I was off. Alcohol may be worse.
My post wasn't exclusively about which drug destroys the body the fastest. Sure, heroin will destroy your body in 10 years of abuse, and alcohol will do it in 15. Does it mean alcohol is so much better? No, my point was that both, individual and societal harm caused by these drugs is great. And if we were to discuss the important part for the libertarian prohibition crowd, heroin causes much lower societal harm than alcohol, whereas alcohol is less destructive to the individual. You'd think self-proclaimed libertarians would take this as an indication that heroin would be preferable to alcohol in society, but here we are. Then again, I never put any stock into libertarian ideology.
And while important, addictive quality of certain drugs is not a sole, or even the most pertinent indication of its harm. Nicotine is nearly as addictive as heroin and alcohol, but nobody is making the claim it's the worst drug. And also let's not forget that just like functioning alcoholics, there are thousands of functional heroin and cocaine users. Not everyone that tries hard drugs will become either hopelessly addicted or homeless.
I have numerous times alluded to my own drug use in these discussions. I use cocaine occasionally with my friends. I have a well paying job, a young baby girl, a home I own. It affects my life less than my friends' drinking does theirs, because cocaine wears off in a couple of hours and I'm not a zombie for 24-48 hours like my friends after a night of boozin'. And neither am I addicted. I go weeks to months without using or thinking about it. Lucky for me, I also have a trusted source, so I'm never worried about fentanyl, which has affected casual cocaine users just like hardcore heroin users we typically think of when drug ODs are mentioned. I recall witnessing an OD from cocaine at a local pub, due to laced drugs. The person was doing nothing different than any other person in the establishment - getting effed up. Except his preferred method was illegal, and therefore outside of any regulation and susceptible to street dealer tactics of buffing it.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774
Legalization is not a perfect solution, no. However, it is the most effective at both, reducing societal harm and rates of addiction and self-destruction. Take a look at the way things have been going since the drug war began in the 70s. Can you say honestly that prohibition has worked in any way (aside from appeasing morality police)? I think that's a solid "NO". What we've been doing has not worked, more people than ever are dying from drugs in Vancouver. Heroin use is on the rise in the US, according to the CDC (not this CDC, the important one).
Yes, places like California are screwing up legalization because of high taxes. When I was there last spring, I paid $20/gram, whereas in BC I paid about $7/gram in US dollars, and it was still illegal here back then. This will allow a black market to flourish. I was also told I can't buy from a shop because I didn't have my passport, forcing me to buy from the black market on Venice Beach. That's not the story everywhere. In Colorado, weed prices have crashed so fast that a pound today is worth less than half what it was 2 years ago. And it's trickled down to the customers. In Oregon, price of a gram has dropped from $14/g to $7/g.
At the end of the day, it is a product like any other, and as legalization spreads, it'll continue to drop in price, squeezing out the black market. Maybe there will still be black market, cigarettes have had one for decades. However, if we accept one truth, it is that people will always want to get high. That is not a fight that can be won, not with prohibition, not with legalization, not with education. It's a fact of life, just like changing of seasons or death and taxes. You can't fix it, you can't fight it, you can only accept the reality and work within this framework to reduce harm. Which is what I've been advocating for years.
When it comes to heroin, I don't know what framework will be required to implement legalization. It certainly won't be like marijuana. However, there is no reason for these drugs to be expensive. I would support subsidizing heroin for those with addiction, while also providing programs to help people quit and recover. It doesn't bother me to pay for someone's high. What bothers me are the bike theft epidemic in Vancouver; the senseless deaths from fentanyl laced drugs, in DTES and everywhere else; the exorbitant prices on the street that go into the pockets of organized crime. So really, is it the addictive nature of these drugs that's the issue? Or that they're not regulated and can be akin to playing Russian roulette, while funding criminal organizations? I would say it's the latter, but YMMV.
As for declining culture, I am at a loss what to say there. I can raise my children, I can't raise yours or anyone else's. I've seen kids from good families fall victim to drugs and I've seen kids from broken homes avoid them at all costs. If you or Canuckistani have a plan how to deal with changing family dynamic in the modern world, I applaud you and bid you good luck in implementing it. I don't see how pinning things on "culture" does anyone any good, except maybe feed into some people's sense of superiority because their parents stayed together.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Lancaster said:
Unless they are using drugs to self-medicate, there's basically no other reason to use an illicit drug which is hazardous to ones health.
If self-medicating... then it's a mental health issue and they should be consulting with a medical professional. Many in the DTES who are stuck in that cycle should be helped and maybe institutionalized until they can fully recover.
Those just using "for fun".... it's the government (or society's) fault that they wish to engage is a very very risky behaviour? I'm very libertarian in terms of morality, I can really care less what people do as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.... but that freedom to do whatever also requires a huge level of personal responsibility. The cost to society is great, so their activities impact everyone. Additional policing, more funding for emergency services, higher insurance premiums, re-allocating of hospital resources, impact to property prices, etc... it's not pocket change.
They wish to get high, of course. But just only caring about getting what you want is for children, not adults.
Jesus Tap Dancing Christ. The fact drugs are illegal is what makes them so dangerous. Because they are illegal they carry such a great social cost. People won't overdose in droves if they can get clean, consistent heroin. People won't steal your $&!# if they can afford their fix. People won't stop because it's illegal, it'll just cost a lot more. How do you not understand this?
And what's wrong with doing drugs socially? Do you drink alcohol? What's the difference? Alcohol is just as bad as heroin, I don't see anyone suggesting we let teens with alcohol poisoning die on the street instead of pumping their stomachs.
Goddammit your opinion is so obtuse and ignorant it just pisses me off. We've tried your way for decades and more people are dying than ever. WTF will it take for people like you to grasp what the true issue is? &^@#.
-
15 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said:
Gonna buy your a sibling or relative his or her heroin if they develop an addiction? No. And if you do you might as well give them a gun instead and get it over with. It's not any different if it's a stranger and subsidized heroin. People have continue to overdose and die in record numbers in this province. The concept of safe spaces and "safe drugs" has done jack $&!# to deter any of this.
You know, I'll ask my friend this question. Would he rather have bought clean heroin for his brother, or had him declared dead for 3 minutes before coming back and being paralyzed on the right side of his body, not to mention all the previous overdoses in downtown Starbucks over the years we were growing up. I wonder what his answer will be. Brother is clean now, has a son, and lives a productive life, by the way.
What's your alternative? Letting people continue to overdose and die? You may as well tell water to stop being wet if you think people will ever stop doing drugs. Best society can do is minimize the costs. Costs to our healthcare system, costs to our police enforcement, costs to families in bad neighbourhoods, costs to families of users themselves. Give people access to clean, affordable heroin, and reap the benefits. Or continue on the same path as the last century and watch the problem continue to get worse, because "drugs are bad, mmmkay".
I don't know about you, but I'm tired of seeing my tax money go to save lives that never had to be endangered in the first place. Think of harm reduction next time you see a dozen officers on Hastings arresting some poor schmoe trying to unload stolen goods for pennies on the dollar, all to feed his illegal (and therefore extremely expensive and dangerous) habit. It doesn't have to be this way.
Or maybe you're the guy making a fortune buying expensive bikes for 20 bucks a pop?
-
45 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said:
Get high safely. On heroin. There's an oxymoron if I ever heard of one.
Fry your brain on your own dime..
This country at all levels of government is a complete embarrassment. I'd leave, but the States are just as bad.I guess you prefer them stealing from grandmas to "earn" their dime. Also, I'm sure you love having all the junkies clogging up healthcare, right? Can't give people free, clean drugs, or they might get high and not die. Why won't somebody think of the children.
PS. Heroin is a prescription drug in the UK.
The UCP Alberta Government - Threatens to Turn off Oil Taps
in Off-Topic General
Posted
Racists, bigots, homophobes and cheats win the election and Alberta is back to its norm.