meh, should it be made illegal to take cyanide and kill yourself? I don't think so, what place is it of the state to tell people the can't kill themselves. All other drugs are less bad than cyanide. Therefore legalize them all (except maybe rohypnol cause that can be used as a weapon)

no yeah true. Fuck anyone who drugs someone without their knowing. That shit needs to remain mega illegal

but why do we even need to know that @Deleted User ? even if more people get addicted, that is a victimless crime (you hurt no one but yourself). Not to mention, legal drugs almost entirely eliminates the risk of overdose because of regulation that the black market simply cannot provide.

being an addict puts you at a higher risk for committing other thievery related crimes I agree

but we punish the actual acts of stealing, not the risk factors

being in a low income neighborhood makes you more at higher risk to be a criminal

but we don't punish being in a low income neighborhood

of course I would. so do you think the best way to solve these problems is to make it illegal to live there, and illegal to do the drugs?

ok I mean you can say that but I fail to see what the meaningful difference is

what I'm trying to say is that we punish the people who actually do the bad things. We don't punish the people who put themselves in a position where they're statistically more likely to do a bad thing, but don't

people who join the military are less likely to co mitt crime (because they are busy and paid). We don't punish people for remaining civilians just because that leaves themselves at a higher risk statistically for turning criminal

absolutely. throw em in jail or get them in mandatory rehab or both.

i am not intending being high as a kite (or wanting to be) to be a get out of jail free card, haha

I don't want to increase the addiction rate. I see that a likely unwanted side effect of what I do want to see, which is the legalization, taxation and regulation of all drugs

sometimes giving people rights has consequences. The right to speech lets people organize and do things like call other slurs, which can sometimes lead to a physical altercation. We let people have their right to speak, and we punish the people who actually commit assault

I think people have rights over their own bodies, and what they put in them. If they aren't hurting anyone else, what business is that of the state?

then punish the people who hurt other people

its not illegal to call someone a slur, even if increases your odds of getting physically assaulted by 500% (i made that up but can't be too far off)

tell me about it. What do you think legal speech has done? The amount of harm it has caused. how do you feel about free speech?

are you looking at this from a strictly consequentialist moral philosophically?

because you know its not the job of the state to maximize utility

neither do I

but I think preventing overdoeses, and de-powering gangs while giving everyone a right to do something which hurts no one else is pretty good all around

we let people do stupid crap all the time. We let people climb everst. We let people try and convince their friends to climb everst with them. Do you understand the amount of deaths that has caused? we let kids bike around the city by themselves and take their other kid friends with them. we can't and don't eliminate all risks, not for adults and not for kdis.

it won't stop but surely you agree it will see a dramatic decrease

yes, loads of people. the reason street stuff costs less is because its laced with shit and not tested for safety because its not safe

now I'm not so sure about that one Trav. I also do not support affirmative action programs, but I acknowledge that some forms of systemic racism still exist. For instance, how do you respond to the study that found that when searching for a job, people with stereotypical black sounding names received calls back at a significantly lower rate that their equally qualified non-black named counterparts? Does that not constitute some form of systemic racism?

well, I'm going to have to take a look at the specifics of the study. If what you are saying is true, then I should expect that the "black sounding" names identified should have equal prevalence in the poor white communities and the poor black communities.

That is true that it wouldn't prove it conclusively, but you cannot argue that it would be strong evidence in favor

racism would be hard to isolate and prove with an exact level of precision, because at the end of the day you can only measure what people do, not why they did it or what was going on in their heads

yes, what I mean is I would expect a random white person in poverty if drawn out of a hat to be just as a likely as a random black person in poverty of having the "black sounding" name

first, those issues are definitely very interrelated. second, there might be some poor white boys named "Tyrone" but I expect they are much fewer and far between than black boys. It's not immediately obvious to me that the being named "tyrone" is at all corralled with being poor, however it is correlated with being black.

for the study to truly have been measuring class and not race, you would need to demonstrate that there is a correlation between being poor and being named "tyrone" or the like

it seemed to me that you were

no, you made a claim that the methodology was faulty

your alternative is only reasonable if you can demonstrate it

here is a link to it I believe

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews

yes it does have to do with people

's names. And people's names have to do do with their culture and race

these are not completely independent category

but the studies controlled for applicants with equal qualificants

so in a way that is controlling for something poverty correlate

I know race isn't a culture. but again, they are highly correlate. They are not independent issues

and I am not convinced that a white boy in the ghetto is just as likely as a black boy to be named Tyrone

I don't think that'

s true, if it is show me

yes I know that. I am not disagreeing with you guys. I am simply pointing out the fact that your race is correlate with your culture and your name

Its not only a race issues, but it is an issues very intertwined with race

I didn

't say race was the only possible factor

I think we have good evidence to believe it is a large contributing factor

yes @T2the2ndpowr

well then you're throwing out all of sociology and physiology

because those fields always work in some amount of grey area

we can't know for certain what's going on in other people's heads

we can only test for how they act in the world

its imprecise science, but its science

yes, but even if it is entirely the poverty thing, then we still need to contend with the fact that black people are so disproportionately in poverty that their stereotypical black names have become associate with it

do you understand how that's almost no better

I have personally never met a black person with either of those names

but I will take your word for it that they are sterotypically black

I think your failing to understand my point

just because there are exceptions to the rule, doesn't mean there isn'

t a rule

ok, but did you read what I wrote about that being hardly any better?

black people are more likely to be named tyrone. black people are more likely to be in poverty. the black people named tyrone are more likely to be in the ghetto. Now anyone named tyrone (disproportionately black people) gets judged for the name because it is associated with poverty because \as a large contributing factor black people are disproportionately in property.

and black people are more likely to be impoverished

which effects stereotypically black names

which effects all black people

how do you know that @T2the2ndpowr You know it is based 0% on race or that people aren't using race a shortcut to infer poverty? How do you know that?

no, you really cannot

I don't think you all are understanding my position

the only way the results of the study do not imply some level of systemic racism, is if the results are explained 100% by something else. This is fact

I believe the results of the study are indicative of some level of systemic racism

we are now squabbling about how much

and apparently defintions

yeah I've been thinking about it

I missed the one toady, but maybe next time

peace, have a good one

<@!735217061323866203> that's not how you would like to use to phrase"systemic racism"

can we agree it is racism of some kind?

I really don't care about what word we use to call it

once again, I don't really want to caught up arguing about the langue of it

the reason I would use the word "systemic" is because it is system wide, ie. it doesn't seem to be confined to any locality

but it might be more accurate to use another term, that we can both agree on

would it then potentially be evidence of some form of racism?

buddy, you're getting too caught up in the language of the situation. I don't care what we call it. The biases evidenced by the study (however big or little) exists out their in the world in a demonstrable and measurable capacity regardless of how we refer to them. Language is arbitrary, we can call things whatever we want. Perhaps 1 or 2% isn't enough for you to call something "systemic." Ok cool. Is the level of bias actually less than 2%? Even if it is less than 2%, is that not still a problem we can talk about even if in your book it doesn't qualify for the title of "systemic"? At the end of the day, I'm a lot more interested in discussing the issues than debating over how to refer to the issues. The goal posts have not moved, we just didn't agree on are terms yet.

yo I've actually gtg now too. Feel free to still respond though, I might check tomorrow

<@!735217061323866203> if the argument is about concepts then lets talk about the concepts. would it not be troubling for there to be any percent of cops in america who are racist? what am I allowed to call it when 1% of cops in america are racist? is it actually less than 1-2%, where did you get that number? can we please just agree on a term?

this is probably not the right place, but if this happened to you, how do you cope with it? I kind of feel abused and I don't know how to feel any better about it. Any suggestions would be helpful.

what do you mean?

I'd so say so, probably

i'd say typical

me?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at

yes, I would say they were loving

I would not characterize them with any neglect or abuse

how does this figure in relation to my question?

I felt abused in relation to this one instance