Re: Homeless People, What is the Solution?

[Guest guest]

" Once someone makes a choice, whether deluted by an illness or even

in

commition of the " false crime opposing fundmental liberties " . It can

be argued that anyone taking drugs or at least some are doing so

becuase they are ill. There is no personal liability to what the

every essence of free will allows. The laws though intending to be

helpfull are indeed violations of liberties themselves. Especially in

cases where those who morally oppose usages remove the liberties

becuase of their beliefs. Usage itself is counter-productive and

harmfull but to be imprisioned for it is equally wrong when they

should be treated instead of punished for freedoms. "

,

Every illegal drug that exists has a legal substitute that can be

medically prescribed by a doctor. Therefore, there is no reason

whatsoever to use illegal drugs. People who do so would be breaking

the law and therefore ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent

of the law, which means that some of their civil liberties will be

removed.

They made the decision to break the law, therefore they should fully

expect to reap the reprucussions of breaking the law.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Personally I believe the law is illegal. In exeption for those that

manufacture them. The addict must first be ill thus incompetent to be

held liable. Once addicted choice is no longer a valid argument.

>

> " Once someone makes a choice, whether deluted by an illness or even

> in

> commition of the " false crime opposing fundmental liberties " . It can

> be argued that anyone taking drugs or at least some are doing so

> becuase they are ill. There is no personal liability to what the

> every essence of free will allows. The laws though intending to be

> helpfull are indeed violations of liberties themselves. Especially

in

> cases where those who morally oppose usages remove the liberties

> becuase of their beliefs. Usage itself is counter-productive and

> harmfull but to be imprisioned for it is equally wrong when they

> should be treated instead of punished for freedoms. "

>

> ,

>

> Every illegal drug that exists has a legal substitute that can be

> medically prescribed by a doctor. Therefore, there is no reason

> whatsoever to use illegal drugs. People who do so would be breaking

> the law and therefore ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent

> of the law, which means that some of their civil liberties will be

> removed.

>

> They made the decision to break the law, therefore they should

fully

> expect to reap the reprucussions of breaking the law.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

" You have attacked others on this forum in the name of Toms defense

lately, it's emotional on your end and your overreacting. Please

settle down. "

,

Raven is merely agreeing with me on this issue.

She is not attacking you in defense of me.

I can fight my own battles.

Settle down.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Many of the rules oppose freedom.. I consider rules meant to be broken

as long as it does not directly harm another individual or intentially

indirectly harm an individual. This is when moral oppression becomes

something other then a good ethic. Such is the case with illegal drugs,

it only harms the individual (if now slow suicide) but environmentally

some drugs distroy our environment.

" ... <snip> ... Ultimately choosing to be on the

> streets to me is an illness. There are ways to make sure there are

> homes for everyone, money is no excuse. "

>

> Some people are homeless because they just don't want to have to

> conform to the rules and regulations and laws of society.

>

> Raven

> Co-Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

" The laws currently though protective of society are to harsh, they

jail people for being ill and basically remove there freedoms. "

The laws did not exist in the first place until drug addicts caused

so much crime and so much trouble that laws became necessary to

combat the problem.

If the laws are harsh, blame the people who caused the laws to be

created and passed: The illegal drug users, sellers, and addicts.

" Anyone on drugs instead of being in jail should be treated unless

selling them in my opinion. "

They SHOULD be treated, but who should pay for their treatment? I

didn't start them on drugs, so why should I pay to get them off

drugs?

They made their own mess. Let them clean it up.

" Punishing someone for being ill is to me a moral oppression and

persecution. "

If a person is ill, then they should be treated.

But if a person is using drugs recreationally, then they ought to be

jailed until such time as they get overtheir addictions and until

they can repay whatever other debts to society they ought to be

paying.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

I wouldnt want to be victim of one of Raven's attacks against an

opposer of Tom. As admins there has been as I have seen lately a

responsive pattern which utterly tares apart any sort of anti-remark..

It is vicious and unprofessional... There is merit to the bias

argument of relational " emotions " . Overeaction primarly, as most of

it was utterly false in overreaction. She likes you enough to be so

emotional like this, I think it is obvious my arguement is true. She

has never said such things to me before..

>

> " You have attacked others on this forum in the name of Toms defense

> lately, it's emotional on your end and your overreacting. Please

> settle down. "

>

> ,

>

> Raven is merely agreeing with me on this issue.

>

> She is not attacking you in defense of me.

>

> I can fight my own battles.

>

> Settle down.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

wrote: " Christ would likely heal them not stigmatize them. "

It is written somewhere in the Bible that God helps those who help

themselves.

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Personally I believe the law is illegal. In exeption for those that

manufacture them. The addict must first be ill thus incompetent to be

held liable. Once addicted choice is no longer a valid argument. "

The addict does not materialize out of nowhere.

S/he makes the choice to start using illegal drugs knowing full well

the drug s/e is using is illegal to begin with. Therefore that addict

ought to be held liable to the fullest extent of the law.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

wrote: " ... <snip> ... Personally I believe the law is

illegal. In exeption for those that manufacture them. The addict must

first be ill thus incompetent to be held liable. Once addicted choice

is no longer a valid argument. "

While it is your personal belief that the law is illegal, it is,

nonetheless, the law.

Additionally, an addict need not be ill first before becoming an

addict. All it takes is the desire to taste of the forbidden fruit

and then to enjoy it to such a degree that you allow the addiction to

control life rather than maintain control over one's own life.

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Your still over-reacting and talking about stuff which does not

apply, as if I am stopping you from doing things. I didn't fully read

it and won't.

" Why would you want to ask my permission or think you need to. The

statements are from a frame of mind that is aggressive and just

argumentive. I don't deserve this so please just stop it. "

I suggest you go back and read the full post. Then you will no

longer have grounds to falsely accuse Raven of anything.

As it is, if you persist with your argument being in full possession

of the facts but having not read them, you will come across as an

ignorant and arrogant fool.

Drop it , right now.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Surely we cannot assume all drug addicts to be criminal towards

others other then the illegal usage. It is money yet again which will

heal or distroy, heal from addiction or distroy with addiction.

Drugs cost money, a drug addict is hopelessly addicted and is no

longer him or herself. Compassion heals and injailing hates.

Moralist that make these laws are down right oppressive. A drug

addict is no longer him or herself and they are gone in the head.

Money distroys by not providing itself to heal. Money is a problem

societally.

>

> " The laws currently though protective of society are to harsh, they

> jail people for being ill and basically remove there freedoms. "

>

> The laws did not exist in the first place until drug addicts caused

> so much crime and so much trouble that laws became necessary to

> combat the problem.

>

> If the laws are harsh, blame the people who caused the laws to be

> created and passed: The illegal drug users, sellers, and addicts.

>

> " Anyone on drugs instead of being in jail should be treated unless

> selling them in my opinion. "

>

> They SHOULD be treated, but who should pay for their treatment? I

> didn't start them on drugs, so why should I pay to get them off

> drugs?

>

> They made their own mess. Let them clean it up.

>

> " Punishing someone for being ill is to me a moral oppression and

> persecution. "

>

> If a person is ill, then they should be treated.

>

> But if a person is using drugs recreationally, then they ought to

be

> jailed until such time as they get overtheir addictions and until

> they can repay whatever other debts to society they ought to be

> paying.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

" I consider rules meant to be broken as long as it does not directly

harm another individual or intentially indirectly harm an individual. "

And this is why we have the problems we have. So many people feel

rules are meant to be broken.

Then later on, they wonder why there is so much trouble and strife in

the world.

It is because these rule breakers caused it. That's why.

Thanks , you just illustrated my point.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

>

> Your still over-reacting and talking about stuff which does not

> apply, as if I am stopping you from doing things. I didn't fully

read

> it and won't.

>

> Why would you want to ask my permission or think you need to. The

> statements are from a frame of mind that is aggressive and just

> argumentive. I don't deserve this so please just stop it.

Well I don't deserve you false allegations that I am

commenting on posts because of a personal relationship with Tom. A

year ago, two years ago, I posted just as I post today ... from my

heart and with proof to back up that which I claim is fact.

But because I am involved with Tom, you feel that it is appropriate

to diminish my opinion by making a big deal out of the relationship.

I am not over-reacting. You are attributing 'emotion' to posts

where no emotion has been placed, but where my opinion has been

stated as well as, in some cases, personal experience or facts.

Get over yourself already. I don't deserve this so YOU please just

stop it.

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

Hitler had laws as well.. I say free them and love them not blaim them

for being ill. Hitler had followers which would have voted for him in a

democracy, that's what I think of the laws.

" ... <snip> ... Personally I believe the law is

> illegal. In exeption for those that manufacture them. The addict must

> first be ill thus incompetent to be held liable. Once addicted choice

> is no longer a valid argument. "

>

> While it is your personal belief that the law is illegal, it is,

> nonetheless, the law.

>

> Additionally, an addict need not be ill first before becoming an

> addict. All it takes is the desire to taste of the forbidden fruit

> and then to enjoy it to such a degree that you allow the addiction to

> control life rather than maintain control over one's own life.

>

> Raven

> Co-Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

Hitler had laws as well.. I say free them and love them not blaim them

for being ill. Hitler had followers which would have voted for him in a

democracy, that's what I think of the laws.

" ... <snip> ... Personally I believe the law is

> illegal. In exeption for those that manufacture them. The addict must

> first be ill thus incompetent to be held liable. Once addicted choice

> is no longer a valid argument. "

>

> While it is your personal belief that the law is illegal, it is,

> nonetheless, the law.

>

> Additionally, an addict need not be ill first before becoming an

> addict. All it takes is the desire to taste of the forbidden fruit

> and then to enjoy it to such a degree that you allow the addiction to

> control life rather than maintain control over one's own life.

>

> Raven

> Co-Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

I think you make a mockery of yourself.. You initiated this attack

and expected me not to respond. If it was not Tom you would not be

this emotionaly charged against me or others Tom has had spats with

lately.

Check the logs..Your on fire...

> >

> > Your still over-reacting and talking about stuff which does not

> > apply, as if I am stopping you from doing things. I didn't fully

> read

> > it and won't.

> >

> > Why would you want to ask my permission or think you need to. The

> > statements are from a frame of mind that is aggressive and just

> > argumentive. I don't deserve this so please just stop it.

>

> Well I don't deserve you false allegations that I am

> commenting on posts because of a personal relationship with Tom. A

> year ago, two years ago, I posted just as I post today ... from my

> heart and with proof to back up that which I claim is fact.

>

> But because I am involved with Tom, you feel that it is appropriate

> to diminish my opinion by making a big deal out of the relationship.

>

> I am not over-reacting. You are attributing 'emotion' to posts

> where no emotion has been placed, but where my opinion has been

> stated as well as, in some cases, personal experience or facts.

>

> Get over yourself already. I don't deserve this so YOU please just

> stop it.

>

> Raven

> Co-Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

I think you make a mockery of yourself.. You initiated this attack

and expected me not to respond. If it was not Tom you would not be

this emotionaly charged against me or others Tom has had spats with

lately.

Check the logs..Your on fire...

> >

> > Your still over-reacting and talking about stuff which does not

> > apply, as if I am stopping you from doing things. I didn't fully

> read

> > it and won't.

> >

> > Why would you want to ask my permission or think you need to. The

> > statements are from a frame of mind that is aggressive and just

> > argumentive. I don't deserve this so please just stop it.

>

> Well I don't deserve you false allegations that I am

> commenting on posts because of a personal relationship with Tom. A

> year ago, two years ago, I posted just as I post today ... from my

> heart and with proof to back up that which I claim is fact.

>

> But because I am involved with Tom, you feel that it is appropriate

> to diminish my opinion by making a big deal out of the relationship.

>

> I am not over-reacting. You are attributing 'emotion' to posts

> where no emotion has been placed, but where my opinion has been

> stated as well as, in some cases, personal experience or facts.

>

> Get over yourself already. I don't deserve this so YOU please just

> stop it.

>

> Raven

> Co-Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

" I wouldnt want to be victim of one of Raven's attacks against an

opposer of Tom. As admins there has been as I have seen lately a

responsive pattern which utterly tares apart any sort of anti-

remark..

" It is vicious and unprofessional... There is merit to the bias

argument of relational " emotions " . Overeaction primarly, as most of

it was utterly false in overreaction. She likes you enough to be so

emotional like this, I think it is obvious my arguement is true. She

has never said such things to me before. "

There have been loads of times Ihave been blasted by a member when

Raven has NOT posted anything. I do not need her or anyone else

to " rescue " me.

She is merely expressing her opinion.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" I wouldnt want to be victim of one of Raven's attacks against an

opposer of Tom. As admins there has been as I have seen lately a

responsive pattern which utterly tares apart any sort of anti-

remark..

" It is vicious and unprofessional... There is merit to the bias

argument of relational " emotions " . Overeaction primarly, as most of

it was utterly false in overreaction. She likes you enough to be so

emotional like this, I think it is obvious my arguement is true. She

has never said such things to me before. "

There have been loads of times Ihave been blasted by a member when

Raven has NOT posted anything. I do not need her or anyone else

to " rescue " me.

She is merely expressing her opinion.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

, do you remember when you attacked me so viciously two years

ago that I quit this forum?

Do you remember when I came back and you attacked me so viciously a

year and a half ago that I quit this forum again?

Do you remember requesting admittance to the Family Forum where I

was a Co-Administrator and then attacking me in the forums where I

was not a member because I was doing a good job as a fair and

impartial Co-Administrator in that forum?

Were your comments during these three episodes merely bias argument

of relational " emotions " on your part?

Despite your repeated attacks against me over the years, I post to

you respectfully. But because you do not like my opinion, you have

chosen to attack my personal relationship rather than argue points

of law and logic.

And , I have indeed said these things to you before. Anyone

who has read my posts over the years in this and the other FAM

forums will tell you that this is indeed how I feel about the

situations you have mentioned in your posts. Perhaps a walk through

the archives will prove to you that you are mistaken in believing

that I have only recently been one to argue my opinion which has

remained constant over decades now.

Raven

Co-Administrator

> >

> > " You have attacked others on this forum in the name of Toms

defense

> > lately, it's emotional on your end and your overreacting. Please

> > settle down. "

> >

> > ,

> >

> > Raven is merely agreeing with me on this issue.

> >

> > She is not attacking you in defense of me.

> >

> > I can fight my own battles.

> >

> > Settle down.

> >

> > Tom

> > Administrator

> >

>

[Guest guest]

, do you remember when you attacked me so viciously two years

ago that I quit this forum?

Do you remember when I came back and you attacked me so viciously a

year and a half ago that I quit this forum again?

Do you remember requesting admittance to the Family Forum where I

was a Co-Administrator and then attacking me in the forums where I

was not a member because I was doing a good job as a fair and

impartial Co-Administrator in that forum?

Were your comments during these three episodes merely bias argument

of relational " emotions " on your part?

Despite your repeated attacks against me over the years, I post to

you respectfully. But because you do not like my opinion, you have

chosen to attack my personal relationship rather than argue points

of law and logic.

And , I have indeed said these things to you before. Anyone

who has read my posts over the years in this and the other FAM

forums will tell you that this is indeed how I feel about the

situations you have mentioned in your posts. Perhaps a walk through

the archives will prove to you that you are mistaken in believing

that I have only recently been one to argue my opinion which has

remained constant over decades now.

Raven

Co-Administrator

> >

> > " You have attacked others on this forum in the name of Toms

defense

> > lately, it's emotional on your end and your overreacting. Please

> > settle down. "

> >

> > ,

> >

> > Raven is merely agreeing with me on this issue.

> >

> > She is not attacking you in defense of me.

> >

> > I can fight my own battles.

> >

> > Settle down.

> >

> > Tom

> > Administrator

> >

>

[Guest guest]

" Moralist that make these laws are down right oppressive. "

,

" Moralists " as you call them, would not need to make the laws if the

addicts did not affect people in sociey in such a harmful way.

As it is, I think law makers are TOO TOLERANT with illegal drug users.

After all, these people cause so much trouble to others in so many

different ways that a first offense ought to be enough for a life

sentence just to keep these people from burdening society ever again.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Moralist that make these laws are down right oppressive. "

,

" Moralists " as you call them, would not need to make the laws if the

addicts did not affect people in sociey in such a harmful way.

As it is, I think law makers are TOO TOLERANT with illegal drug users.

After all, these people cause so much trouble to others in so many

different ways that a first offense ought to be enough for a life

sentence just to keep these people from burdening society ever again.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Hitler had laws as well.. I say free them and love them not blaim them

for being ill. Hitler had followers which would have voted for him in a

democracy, that's what I think of the laws. "

If Germany would not have voided the laws that prevented Hitler from

coming to power, there would have been no Hitler as Chancellor in the

first place.

But sappy people who believed that the laws against absolute power

were too strict repealed the laws. Then Hitler came to power and a

world war took places which killed over 42 million people.

All this because people felt that the laws against absolute power were

too strict.

If you lived in the time of Hitler, , you would have voted to

repeal those strict laws, and you would have been diorectly

responsible for Hitler coming to power.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Hitler had laws as well.. I say free them and love them not blaim them

for being ill. Hitler had followers which would have voted for him in a

democracy, that's what I think of the laws. "

If Germany would not have voided the laws that prevented Hitler from

coming to power, there would have been no Hitler as Chancellor in the

first place.

But sappy people who believed that the laws against absolute power

were too strict repealed the laws. Then Hitler came to power and a

world war took places which killed over 42 million people.

All this because people felt that the laws against absolute power were

too strict.

If you lived in the time of Hitler, , you would have voted to

repeal those strict laws, and you would have been diorectly

responsible for Hitler coming to power.

Tom

Administrator