Re: Homeless People, What is the Solution?

[Guest guest]

" Her opinion leads to gross accusations and confrontation. It's just

not approperate to be attacked in this manner by the administration. "

Keep reading. She provides plenty of proof for her argument in

subsequent posts.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Tom I was talking about making it illegal to be individually

understood as being ill and thus pinished as if one is a criminal

when one did no arm to another person. One is punished for being ill

and that's that. It's discriminatory and wrong. Moral oppression...

>

> " 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 were too strict repealed the laws.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]

I was going to argue absolute notions in the original hitler reply.

It is interesting it is argued here in re-reply. Punishing the ill

for being ill is akin of what Hitler did to the jewish for being

jewish. that's all I wanted to put accross and yes, people who agree

with punishing the ill for being addicted are in fact criminal in a

similar way as hitler but no way to the extent.

They don't like something so therefore a persons freedoms are removed

and their charactors distroyed. It's oppression...

>

>

> In a message dated 2/1/2007 9:13:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> no_reply writes:

>

> 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 were too strict repealed the laws.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.

>

>

>

> Hitler came to power because there were people who thought that

they could

> control him. What they underestimated though was his ability to

rabble rouse.

> He got the public behind him with his emotional and rousing

speeches and that

> was that. By the time the masses figured out what they had done,

it was too

> late to oppose him.

>

> It was kind of like the French Revolution. A few masterful rabble

rousers

> like Robespierre (sp.), Murat, and other turned the masses of Paris

into

> bloodthirsty mobs that in the end murdered close to 200,000 of

their fellow

> Frenchmen. Murat lay the groundwork with a " newspaper " that

preached hatred and

> murder in a way the drove the crowds mad. Robespierre set up the

government that

> conducted a series of Terrors, each more savage and bloody than the

one

> before. This is not even county the deaths causes by Napoleon.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I was going to argue absolute notions in the original hitler reply.

It is interesting it is argued here in re-reply. Punishing the ill

for being ill is akin of what Hitler did to the jewish for being

jewish. that's all I wanted to put accross and yes, people who agree

with punishing the ill for being addicted are in fact criminal in a

similar way as hitler but no way to the extent.

They don't like something so therefore a persons freedoms are removed

and their charactors distroyed. It's oppression...

>

>

> In a message dated 2/1/2007 9:13:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> no_reply writes:

>

> 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.

>

>

>

> Hitler came to power because there were people who thought that

they could

> control him. What they underestimated though was his ability to

rabble rouse.

> He got the public behind him with his emotional and rousing

speeches and that

> was that. By the time the masses figured out what they had done,

it was too

> late to oppose him.

>

> It was kind of like the French Revolution. A few masterful rabble

rousers

> like Robespierre (sp.), Murat, and other turned the masses of Paris

into

> bloodthirsty mobs that in the end murdered close to 200,000 of

their fellow

> Frenchmen. Murat lay the groundwork with a " newspaper " that

preached hatred and

> murder in a way the drove the crowds mad. Robespierre set up the

government that

> conducted a series of Terrors, each more savage and bloody than the

one

> before. This is not even county the deaths causes by Napoleon.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This is the danger of stigmas, as a moralist you (if you agree with

the laws) opress a whole group for the deeds of a few that harm

people in other ways while under the influence of frugs. You disagree

with drug usage therefore hate them enough to throw them in jail

instead of simply treat them for the illness. To me it is intolerance

and a moral oppression and is unethical.

Just becuase a law is popular does not mean it is right.. Beware of

the oppression of the majority, I say.

>

> " 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]

This is the danger of stigmas, as a moralist you (if you agree with

the laws) opress a whole group for the deeds of a few that harm

people in other ways while under the influence of frugs. You disagree

with drug usage therefore hate them enough to throw them in jail

instead of simply treat them for the illness. To me it is intolerance

and a moral oppression and is unethical.

Just becuase a law is popular does not mean it is right.. Beware of

the oppression of the majority, I say.

>

> " 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

>