Should we execute drug dealers?

Magna, I am NOT assuming dgabriel has altered the poll!! As I stated, I am entirely comfortable that the majority of those who voted do not agree with me. My sarcasm was intended as a reference to dgabriel's conduct and attitude, not an inference that he manipulated the poll.

It would be nice, however, if those who do not agree with me would explain why, other than labeling me a Nazi, Communist, or whatever. I don't think the questions I brought up about legalization were unreasonable. Do you? That the pro-legalization crowd has chosen to ignore my questions is very indicative that they probably cannot answer the questions.

BTW, what, if anything, will be done about Fluidity's profanity? It clearly violates the terms of service, does it not?

 

I believe that an impartial review of the thread here will reveal that you first resorted to churlish, puerile sarcasm as a response to my initial posts. I then felt justified in negatively commenting on your intelligence. It appears I am not alone in this assessment.

You began an incendiary thread and you failed to properly manage your own emotions during the life of the thread. You initiated attack with offensive sarcasm and upon receiving it in turn, you feel the need to whine to the management in the hopes of eliminating an ET member with whom you disagree. It is not so odd that your target has accused you of fascism, a social order under which no dissent is tolerated.

Perhaps it's time to move on Hapaboy. Or return to the debate at hand with politeness and respect.

 

Let's do that then. Let's review the thread. You were the first to inject sarcasm with the following:

And let's be realistic. Sarcasm by itself does not bother me in the least. But YOU were the first to employ it. My response:

Hardly sarcastic, wouldn't you agree? I merely answered your sarcasm with a straight answer!
YOUR next post then escalated things when YOUR emotions got the better of you:

Then you threw in the beef, dairy, and egg industries out of the blue, which definitely did not aid in keeping this thread on track at all! Before I could respond, Fluidity made his first post on the thread in a very civil manner:

My response to Fluidity DID NOT incorporate profanity, which, given his attack, I had every right to do so. Sarcasm yes, but not profanity. And did you caution Fluidity? No? Why? Because you're not responsible for the thread? That's a sorry excuse. As a moderator aren't you supposed to monitor profanity, regardless? And my response to your last post asked questions about cheaper drugs leading to more crime. I did, to be fair, respond to your throwing in the beef, dairy, and egg industries with some sarcasm:

I think my moderator comment is what pissed you off, I could be wrong. I then said that I do have a visceral hatred for drug dealers, and asked "Don't you?" To which you responded in your next post with:

So here you go tit-for-tat with the sarcasm. Then you threw this in for good measure:

Fine. Then you shouldn't have taken offense when I responded "I don't care....I really don't" to your points in my next post. I then suspect you got riled up because freealways and daniel_m disagreed with you and posted as such. Anyway, your next comment to me was the following, which I think anyone can see is a case of YOU not being able to properly manage your emotions:

Thus you ridiculed my username with sexual innuendo of the worst kind, child perversity, which really shows the level you can sink to. And you totally disregarded the questions I asked about legalization in-between our exchanges, questions I posed with the utmost civility and genuine interest in a response. As you clearly had lost it and insulted me in such a childish manner, our next posts degenerated into tit-for-tat exchanges of sarcasm and offensive commentary, which I won't detail here.

Clearly, dgabriel, you lost control of your emotions at an earlier stage then I did, and threw sarcasm in first. Yes, we're both guilty of it, but for you to say I'm completely at fault with a false claim that I initiated it and for you to try and act as innocent as a virgin is completely absurd.

And if your comment above about you "not being alone in this assessment" includes Fluidity, well, it just proves not only how biased you are but that you are quite willing to accept profanity in personal attacks as long as the swearer has the same point of view that you have. A review of the posts will also reveal that Fluidity again attacked me with profanity and I NEVER used it back at him.

And FYI, I have tried to bring this thread back on track "with politeness and respect" but Fluidity keeps jumping in from left field and derails it. But I suppose that's okay, along with his profanity, because you share his point of view.

As far as "whine to the management" I am merely bringing up the Terms of Service that exist for this site! Or do you consider those terms of service worthless and anyone who refers to them as whiners? Don't bother to answer - it's obvious the answer is "yes" to both queries. You're like France at the UN, complaining when the US points to Resolution 1441. In effect, your view is "yeah, we've got these rules, but enforce them! Ha!"

Furthermore, I have not advocated "eliminating" Fluidity! Good grief, but you are ever so good at jumping to conclusions and putting words in people's mouths! I have advocated discipline of some kind, possibly suspension. At least a WARNING for chrissakes! The Terms of Service clearly prohibit abusive and obscene language. But I guess that only is enforced whether or not the abuser is in agreement with the moderator at the time or not, if at all.

Anyone who takes an "impartial review of this thread" will note that there was a very civil and informational exchange with RS7 and bungrider throughout all of this, a very cordial discussion that stayed on topic and elicited good questions from both sides of the drug debate. It's too bad your escalating tactics and Fluidity's aggressive, profane-laced, and un-censored attacks had to basically ruin the thread.

If this quote from a moderator about a moderator's function is accurate

then, dgabriel, you only score 1 out of 3. I'm sure you're extremely effective at preventing Spam.

 

This post of yours put the thread into new territory and preceded my comment on your being brain dead.

 

come on guys. time to kiss and make up.

the very nature of the discussions that take place in chit chat virtually guarantee that sometimes our emotions are going to get the better of us and that issues become personal and colorful language enters the scene.

so someone steps on your toes.. BIG DEAL.

lol, i only wish not being offended on a message board was the limit of my problems..

 

I hardly "skipped" that! Good grief, are you even reading the entire posts?

Obviously not!

Go ahead. Try to find another feeble way to vindicate yourself. Quite pathetic.

 

legalization is the only way to solve the supposed drug problem. executing dealers will only make the surviving dealers stronger and richer. most drug users are not addicts, addicts need medical help not jail. legalization does not mean a free for all for drugs. mankind has always sought ways to intoxicate him/herself, and no laws or punishments are going to stop this basic nature.



economics 101,

surfer

 

By that silly reasoning, why not legalize terrorism? Executing terrorists will only make existing terrorists stronger and richer.

 

wrong. that is a bizzare analogy, terrorism is not economically driven. ( generally )