236 replies to this topic

[Metigue]

Wasn't? o.O
I thought it started with the two roses war, but neither the families that were participating won, but the tudors (that I have no idea from where came from, since we didn't go really deep and my memory is killing me right now)

The two roses war was just the start of the tudors reign, England was around for Centuries before that.
No, the two roses war ended when Henry VII Killed Richard III in the Battle of Bosworth Field and Married the dead king's niece, Elizabeth, I think. (Very shady on my history)

Anyway, America was founded by explorers with no indication of actually searching for new land, to say that it was founded for a reason is stupid. Especially religious reasons, although I can understand the mis-interpretation considering the religious wars and such going on at the time. Many of the people to go to America were people escaping the religious persecution back in England and thats why New England was full of Puritans in the early days. But just because the majority of people to arrive there were escaping from religious persectuion, does not mean it was founded for that reason.

[redlion]

iargue: Your methodology is unsound sir, as is your argumentation. If you care to debate, I will engage.

First, establish context. (Cogito, ergo sum)

The United States was founded with religious intolerance at heart, and discriminates against ethnic and religious minorities up to and including the present day. The earliest European settlers in the present United States were Spanish Catholics in Florida, who were most certainly not about religious freedom. The phrase "God, Gold and Glory" is often associated with European motives for colonizing the new world, and for the Iberians in particular. However, since you seem to think that my country of birth was founded by English Puritans, let us grant you that given.

Therefore, my first premise: The only Europeans present at the founding of the fledgling British Colonies were English speaking Puritans like those that founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Now, what you said regarding large numbers of Puritans (which is a modern name for mostly Anglican Separatists) leaving England because of persecution is partially true; their practices and disdain for other less radical members of the Church of England led to some members being punished for their beliefs, as well as deportation in some extreme cases. No one is denying that these crimes were horrendous and intolerant of the King. However, to say that the Puritans were religiously tolerant either objectively or even in comparison to the King is a grave misconception.

Premise 2: The Separatist "Puritan" movement in New England was largely intolerant of other religions and religious practices, and persecuted other religions in much the same manner as the Separatists themselves had been treated in England. For instance, the Puritans believed rather heavily in the practice of witch burning, whereby socially deviant youth (both men and women) were burned at the stake, drowned, tortured, and summarily put to death for no reason besides a lack of 'Puritan' faith. The Puritans in Massachusetts also chased out a man before his time, Roger Williams, who went on to found Rhode Island to avoid religious persecution. Anne Hutchinson later joined him in exile. Other people persecuted in Boston for their religious beliefs include Mary Dyer, William Robinson and Marmaduke Stephenson, who all three went willingly to their deaths for the cause of pacifism.

Premise 3: The other early British colonies were largely founded to protect religious dissenters from the savagery of believers in established colonies (like Boston). For instance, the peaceful and tolerant Quakers (the Religious Society of Friends is their proper name) were persecuted throughout the Americas, most especially in Boston, from whence they were banished during a period of special intolerance. These pacifist egalitarian people were mistreated until William Penn appealed to the King of England to receive territory specifically for the benefit of Quakers and other religious minorities (which would become Pennsylvania). Similarly, New Jersey was bought by rich Quakers and turned into a haven from the Puritans. Maryland was formed to protect Catholics in an otherwise Anglican sphere of influence.

Ergo, The earliest colonies in the present United States were anything but tolerant. The toleration you see today is the result of three hundred years of struggle for individual liberty.

[Amour]

I'd love to legalize weed. The Brazilian president guy is pressing for Brazil to have drugs legalized.

[Bryan]

iargue: Your methodology is unsound sir, as is your argumentation. If you care to debate, I will engage.

First, establish context. (Cogito, ergo sum)

The United States was founded with religious intolerance at heart, and discriminates against ethnic and religious minorities up to and including the present day. The earliest European settlers in the present United States were Spanish Catholics in Florida, who were most certainly not about religious freedom. The phrase "God, Gold and Glory" is often associated with European motives for colonizing the new world, and for the Iberians in particular. However, since you seem to think that my country of birth was founded by English Puritans, let us grant you that given.

Therefore, my first premise: The only Europeans present at the founding of the fledgling British Colonies were English speaking Puritans like those that founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Now, what you said regarding large numbers of Puritans (which is a modern name for mostly Anglican Separatists) leaving England because of persecution is partially true; their practices and disdain for other less radical members of the Church of England led to some members being punished for their beliefs, as well as deportation in some extreme cases. No one is denying that these crimes were horrendous and intolerant of the King. However, to say that the Puritans were religiously tolerant either objectively or even in comparison to the King is a grave misconception.

Premise 2: The Separatist "Puritan" movement in New England was largely intolerant of other religions and religious practices, and persecuted other religions in much the same manner as the Separatists themselves had been treated in England. For instance, the Puritans believed rather heavily in the practice of witch burning, whereby socially deviant youth (both men and women) were burned at the stake, drowned, tortured, and summarily put to death for no reason besides a lack of 'Puritan' faith. The Puritans in Massachusetts also chased out a man before his time, Roger Williams, who went on to found Rhode Island to avoid religious persecution. Anne Hutchinson later joined him in exile. Other people persecuted in Boston for their religious beliefs include Mary Dyer, William Robinson and Marmaduke Stephenson, who all three went willingly to their deaths for the cause of pacifism.

Premise 3: The other early British colonies were largely founded to protect religious dissenters from the savagery of believers in established colonies (like Boston). For instance, the peaceful and tolerant Quakers (the Religious Society of Friends is their proper name) were persecuted throughout the Americas, most especially in Boston, from whence they were banished during a period of special intolerance. These pacifist egalitarian people were mistreated until William Penn appealed to the King of England to receive territory specifically for the benefit of Quakers and other religious minorities (which would become Pennsylvania). Similarly, New Jersey was bought by rich Quakers and turned into a haven from the Puritans. Maryland was formed to protect Catholics in an otherwise Anglican sphere of influence.

Ergo, The earliest colonies in the present United States were anything but tolerant. The toleration you see today is the result of three hundred years of struggle for individual liberty.

I want to be iargue for a moment.

lol are you kidding. the dollar says in god we trust. That means we trust god, that means we were founded on religion. tolerance is nothing. like you smoke lot of weed you get tolerant. so lot of religion = they tolerant.

ps: window rules! linux and mac is fial.

Edited by Bryan, 11 September 2009 - 01:58 PM.

[iargue]

iargue: Your methodology is unsound sir, as is your argumentation. If you care to debate, I will engage.

First, establish context. (Cogito, ergo sum)

The United States was founded with religious intolerance at heart, and discriminates against ethnic and religious minorities up to and including the present day. The earliest European settlers in the present United States were Spanish Catholics in Florida, who were most certainly not about religious freedom. The phrase "God, Gold and Glory" is often associated with European motives for colonizing the new world, and for the Iberians in particular. However, since you seem to think that my country of birth was founded by English Puritans, let us grant you that given.

Therefore, my first premise: The only Europeans present at the founding of the fledgling British Colonies were English speaking Puritans like those that founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Now, what you said regarding large numbers of Puritans (which is a modern name for mostly Anglican Separatists) leaving England because of persecution is partially true; their practices and disdain for other less radical members of the Church of England led to some members being punished for their beliefs, as well as deportation in some extreme cases. No one is denying that these crimes were horrendous and intolerant of the King. However, to say that the Puritans were religiously tolerant either objectively or even in comparison to the King is a grave misconception.

Premise 2: The Separatist "Puritan" movement in New England was largely intolerant of other religions and religious practices, and persecuted other religions in much the same manner as the Separatists themselves had been treated in England. For instance, the Puritans believed rather heavily in the practice of witch burning, whereby socially deviant youth (both men and women) were burned at the stake, drowned, tortured, and summarily put to death for no reason besides a lack of 'Puritan' faith. The Puritans in Massachusetts also chased out a man before his time, Roger Williams, who went on to found Rhode Island to avoid religious persecution. Anne Hutchinson later joined him in exile. Other people persecuted in Boston for their religious beliefs include Mary Dyer, William Robinson and Marmaduke Stephenson, who all three went willingly to their deaths for the cause of pacifism.

Premise 3: The other early British colonies were largely founded to protect religious dissenters from the savagery of believers in established colonies (like Boston). For instance, the peaceful and tolerant Quakers (the Religious Society of Friends is their proper name) were persecuted throughout the Americas, most especially in Boston, from whence they were banished during a period of special intolerance. These pacifist egalitarian people were mistreated until William Penn appealed to the King of England to receive territory specifically for the benefit of Quakers and other religious minorities (which would become Pennsylvania). Similarly, New Jersey was bought by rich Quakers and turned into a haven from the Puritans. Maryland was formed to protect Catholics in an otherwise Anglican sphere of influence.

Ergo, The earliest colonies in the present United States were anything but tolerant. The toleration you see today is the result of three hundred years of struggle for individual liberty.

Its not based on religious tolerance or anything. We where founded because of religion. Whether we wanted it to be tolerant, or intolerant. We where still founded on the whole basis of religion.

You basically argued my point, and then if answer how I would have answered (Though, in a lot more words) if where where religiously tolerant when we where founded. That how Rhode Island was formed, because someone was kicked out for not practicing the same religion.

I want to be iargue for a moment.

lol are you kidding. the dollar says in god we trust. That means we trust god, that means we were founded on religion. tolerance is nothing. like you smoke lot of weed you get tolerant. so lot of religion = they tolerant.

ps: window rules! linux and mac is fial.

If only my thinking was that simple and one sided.

[Mr. Hobo]

Its not based on religious tolerance or anything. We where founded because of religion. Whether we wanted it to be tolerant, or intolerant. We where still founded on the whole basis of religion.

Didn't you say America was founded on freedom of religion earlier?

Also

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/where
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/were

[iargue]

Didn't you say America was founded on freedom of religion earlier?

We were found for religious freedom, not tolerance. We were founded so that way people can practice whatever religion they wanted, didn't mean we liked them for it.

[Mr. Hobo]

We were found for religious freedom, not tolerance. We were founded so that way people can practice whatever religion they wanted, didn't mean we liked them for it.

wat

[iargue]

wat

Freedom and tolerance are two different things.

You can be free to worship Alah, but I can still hate you for it, I just wont prohibit you from doing it.

[Bryan]

Freedom and tolerance are two different things.

You can be free to worship Alah, but I can still hate you for it, I just wont prohibit you from doing it.

Your definition of the words are a bit skewed.

As Webster's states,

tolerance: the act of allowing something

freedom: a political right

Its not based on religious tolerance or anything. We where founded because of religion. Whether we wanted it to be tolerant, or intolerant. We where still founded on the whole basis of religion.

You basically argued my point, and then if answer how I would have answered (Though, in a lot more words) if where where religiously tolerant when we where founded. That how Rhode Island was formed, because someone was kicked out for not practicing the same religion.



If only my thinking was that simple and one sided.

Simple, yes. I don't know about one sided as you never really make a valid point.

[gaelle]

Because illegally it makes more money than if it was legal. Even with taxes !

[Gen]

I'd love to legalize weed. The Brazilian president guy is pressing for Brazil to have drugs legalized.

When did Lula(Brazilian president) say that?

Oh, and Metigue, thanks for clearing that up, I always had this question about England being around before the Two Roses War, since I've been reading Bernard Cornwell's books xD

Because illegally it makes more money than if it was legal. Even with taxes !

Maybe for the people who sell it ilegally, but for the government is much more interesting if they put some taxes in it. The biggest problem isn't Marijuana, thought, since it's only the door to drugs, the real problem is cocain and LSD, drugs that Marijuana eventually will lead to, once the drug user will want stronger drugs...

Edited by G3N3R4T10N, 16 September 2009 - 05:04 PM.

[redlion]

When did Lula(Brazilian president) say that?

Oh, and Metigue, thanks for clearing that up, I always had this question about England being around before the Two Roses War, since I've been reading Bernard Cornwell's books xD



Maybe for the people who sell it ilegally, but for the government is much more interesting if they put some taxes in it. The biggest problem isn't Marijuana, thought, since it's only the door to drugs, the real problem is cocain and LSD, drugs that Marijuana eventually will lead to, once the drug user will want stronger drugs...

In regards to Lula, I don't think it was Brazil at all. Argentina was mentioned earlier because they legalized small amounts; perhaps someone got confused?

While I can agree with your aversion to hard drugs, I have to disagree with the causal relationship you've drawn. Marijuana is probably the least harmful psychoactive drug used for recreation, which is probably why it is so available, despite its illegal status. It is illogical to assume that people move "up the ladder", so to speak, to cocaine and heroin from marijuana. The gateway theory of drug (ab)use has been disseminated from the offices of the drug czar for as long as it has existed, and yet nothing could be more wrong. Your typical marijuana user smokes pot in high school or university, and quits when he has to get a job. There is no necessary advancement to cocaine or LSD from the use of something.

It'd be like saying because you drink soda, you're more likely to buy beer. They both quench your thirst, right? They're both available in a corner store, right? No. The availability of hard drugs in proximity to marijuana does not make it any more likely for someone to buy them.

From personal experience, I've never 'wanted' harder drugs than marijuana. Every once in a while, during a dry spell when there is no pot for miles, we'll find someone selling magic mushrooms to keep us occupied. But that doesn't mean we'd seek cocaine or heroin in the same manner.

In logical terms, the gateway theory can be expressed as follows.

A then B.
A
____
B

Where A is marijuana use and B is hard drug use.

The problem is there are other explanations for B besides A. The problem is in the premise as well as the conclusion, which makes it a BAD argument.

[Ives]

If only my thinking was that simple and one sided.

yea man totally, its at least like 1 and one tenth sided, at least.

[MaidenOfMercy]

I say let people do whatever they have to do to get through the day. I used to have a naive world view where I thought drugs were bad and people that did drugs were bad, but life sucks sometimes. The hard truth is that not everyone can be a winner that can coast by being high on life alone. Expecting everyone to pick themselves up by their bootstraps or whatever the saying is, is silly.

[joe77]

personally i think it would be unwise to legalize the drugs, it would allow people to believe that it is ok, i have see the long term affects it has had on friends and none of them are good. i dont understand why people feel the need to take drugs, is their life that bad, or they due it for recreation, i mean can you not do something that is less harmful to your body for entertainment? just my thoughts on the matter

[Ives]

i understand what you feel joe, but if you look at countries with more lax statuses there's a hell of a lot less black market violence and less users in most cases. the netherlands doesnt have nearly the pot smoking population the US has, for instance.

[turdo]

Maybe for the people who sell it ilegally, but for the government is much more interesting if they put some taxes in it. The biggest problem isn't Marijuana, thought, since it's only the door to drugs, the real problem is cocain and LSD, drugs that Marijuana eventually will lead to, once the drug user will want stronger drugs...

The gateway theory is a total and absolute fallacy. I know plenty of people who smoke weed and only weed. Does everyone that drinks alcohol go on to cocaine and heroin? No.

i understand what you feel joe, but if you look at countries with more lax statuses there's a hell of a lot less black market violence and less users in most cases. the netherlands doesnt have nearly the pot smoking population the US has, for instance.

I'm guessing you mean the percentage of the population right? Obviously the US with it's hundreds of millions of people has more weed smokers than a country with only a fraction of that population.

[jcrdude]

Oh yeah, on the "Gateway Theory."

It's based on poor data gathering for the purpose of creating the "gateway theory."

Instead of going through the population of pot smokers and seeing who moves on to "harder drugs," they decided to go to the users of "harder drugs" and seeing if they had ever smoked pot, smoked cigarettes, or drank alcohol.

They tackled it ass backwards in order to show that 95% of hard drug users started with the "soft drugs."

Complete misuse of statistics.

[turdo]

Oh yeah, on the "Gateway Theory."

It's based on poor data gathering for the purpose of creating the "gateway theory."

Instead of going through the population of pot smokers and seeing who moves on to "harder drugs," they decided to go to the users of "harder drugs" and seeing if they had ever smoked pot, smoked cigarettes, or drank alcohol.

They tackled it ass backwards in order to show that 95% of hard drug users started with the "soft drugs."

Complete misuse of statistics.

Interestingly they also found out that about 99% of heroin users had also wiped their own ass in the past month. Hmmmmmm ... guess what I'm not going to be doing anymore.

[AsheAshley]

In Canada it's legalize for people with chronic pain, under supervision.

[Fatal]

personally i think it would be unwise to legalize the drugs, it would allow people to believe that it is ok, i have see the long term affects it has had on friends and none of them are good. i dont understand why people feel the need to take drugs, is their life that bad, or they due it for recreation, i mean can you not do something that is less harmful to your body for entertainment? just my thoughts on the matter

Just because you don't like drugs/understand them doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal

Heroin used to be readily available at the store, and the world didn't end and go into mass chaos and drug addicts. There are many far more harmful drugs than marijuana legal today, so don't those drugs "allow people to believe that it is ok" aswell? I disagree

Some do drugs for recreation, some do it as a medication to help them through their illness/problems. It's also not the same entertainment that you may be used to, its a different type with different pleasure/effects.

Edited by Fatal, 24 September 2009 - 01:28 PM.

[Amour]

It's ridiculous that something like weed is illegal when something like Alcohol isn't. I'm all for the legalization of weed.

[Eskimo]

<br />Any argument against legalizing marijuana can also be used against alcohol. Either legalize them both or make them both illegal. Of course, we all know how Prohibition worked out....<br />

+1

[LittleOne]

Here, in Argentina, Marijuana was legalized recently(only for personal use, of course).

i am moving to argentina

personally i think it would be unwise to legalize the drugs, it would allow people to believe that it is ok, i have see the long term affects it has had on friends and none of them are good. i dont understand why people feel the need to take drugs, is their life that bad, or they due it for recreation, i mean can you not do something that is less harmful to your body for entertainment? just my thoughts on the matter

Right here my story then u may understand


i have been smoking dope on/off for years (about 8yrs) and it done nothing to me i am not addictd i can go months and yrs without a smoke and it never lead me to the drugs that are RIGHTFULLY illegal such as acid, lsd, cocanie, speed, herion the list goes on

i was lead into the hard drugs by the lifestyle and company i had around me, i was in a violent relationship, had no family, and no future i was suffering from suicidal depression and psycosis (i heard tv telling me to kill my self and conversations with someone in my head) this all lead to me trying my fisrt bit of base called pink champagne after this i tried a bit evbery weekend and the voices got worse so i got on to more stuff more often and became dependant. i left that life one day.....just had enuf and left for my hometown, after that i started smoking dope again and i got my lifestyle sorted and stopped hering voices ....that was 4yrs ago now


weed never drove me to harder drugs....the people i was around did. dope is a lot safer for you than alcohol for a start there are more alchol related deaths then there are weed related....

as long as you smoke responsibly and you are with the right people then you r safe and nothing bad is gonna happen unless you smoke a bit to much then you throw up and feel off it (like on the booze) so it is cheaper than a night at the pub and more social AND because they is now a smoking ban here, we not allow2ed to smoke in the pub.... so at least we can smoke and drink cheaper and in the warmth at home....esspecially considering the cold winter nights are coming soon