Jump to content
IGNORED

Filipino Drug Addicts Being Killed in State Drug Crackdown


Joyrex

Recommended Posts

Our moral intuitions about reproduction are very strange

Like, society will deem you an unscrupulous monster if you create a human in a lab

And probably throw you in prison for 5-10 years

But hey you can create 20 the old fashioned way if you want

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

Also delet, if you think American global hegemony has been bad, just wait until you see what Chinese hegemony looks like.

Yes, that was kind of my point.

 

Ah must have been my poor reading, I thought you were equivocating the two as hegemonic powers. Mea culpa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Decriminalizing or even legalizing and regulating ultra-pure euphoriants that one can purchase and the government can collect taxes on is really the only logical way to go... but -- That's what it's all about. Money.

 

No government actually cares about the health and well-being of drug users, that's a total facade and generally used to tug the heart-strings of the populace to consign their efforts involving wasting money and getting 'the bad guys'. They care that it's a multi-billion dollar unregulated industry that is corralled with violence and power which cannot be profitable to them in the current legal paradigm.

 

Trying to protect consenting adults from their own victimless desires is the most ridiculous thing ever when we have so many other problems. Like, you know, vigilantes that kill people for doing drugs, like that is somehow better than just accepting that people have been achieveing altered states since the beginning of man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I thought the point in the philippines was to take out the dealers. That was the headlines that i saw everywhere but here. And that had been the MO of their prez throughout his successful career that all those people that voted him in must agree with. They see the policy as a lesser of two evils. And i wonder how violence has gone down since there are less mentally unstable, trigger happy drug dealers around killing maiming people that owe them money, rivals and innocents alike all the damn time. I wonder how corruption has gone down, as syndicates no longer have money to bribe everyone from the beat cop to the top government official. I don't think that we can view this solution to a problem from our naive western perspective, things work very differently in a country like the philippines. Another thing that i found odd, was obama, mr. drone wedding parties himself, who has a body count larger than most people's bank accounts, making moralising statements about the policy. Sure mate, sure you care about these people's lives. Perhaps the US is just annoyed at the geopolitical shift that the philippines is taking, coupled with the loss of drug revenues that you know they get a cut of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lesser of two evils is still evil.  

 

Once again, this could all be avoided by legalizing with regulation or decriminalizing with regulation. Doing so sorta takes away the stigma, allure and profit from the illegal drug market and has been proven in Portugal to decrease users and crime quite a bit.. and they only decriminalized! Imagine just having the government regulate ultra-pure drugs and also have some contingency plan with some progressive help for addicts looking to not be a slave to the fix?!

 

Seriously tho, agreeing in any way, shape or form that advocating the murder of people to solve a problem is absolutely asinine when forgetting the gigantic elephant in the room that causes this mess in the first place. It's not cool when Obama does it, it's not cool in this situation and it's not the right answer anywhere.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that drug dealers wreaking havoc in any country is a good thing, but this is just an abhorrent way to solve the situation, even in a closer-to-3rd-world-country -- however temporarily effective it may be. Eventually the drug dealers are going to get smarter and avoid dying and/or start killing citizens, thus just creating wild-west style chaos where ordinary people and drug dealers are waging war in the street. Removing the criminal element from drugs will take time to sort out and may produce some violence, but in the long run it's the most logical choice and leads to less loss of life on both sides of the fight. Mexico is a pretty solid example of what happens when you fight fire with fire in the drug war while not actually doing anything to solve the root of the problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah I think decriminalizing drug use is pretty much the way to go.

 

Also delet, if you think American global hegemony has been bad, just wait until you see what Chinese hegemony looks like.

 

 Yes, that was kind of my point.

 

 As for drugs, you should be able to do whatever you want with your own body (Well except strap bombs to it and walk into a shopping centre), but if that leaves you starving in the gutter, you take responsibility for your actions and i'm not paying for your body modification fetish. Also i take exception to that principle where reproduction is concerned. But i don't want to open that can of worms here, and no i'm not anti-abortion.

 

for anyone in the "not paying for x" where x = is healthcare, doctors in this country made the noble declaration that they will not turn away patients and the less noble declaration that they also want to get paid. i don't want to be snarky, but this is super important and often doesn't make its way into these discussions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 the x i was talking about was not normal healthcare, which i believe is a universal right, but the desire for body modification due to some mental problem. Again though healthcare is a right for citizens whom must be put first, the ever burgeoning global non-western population should not be our burden to save, put our own first, if the doctor wants to work pro bono and pay for all the ancillaries, by all means let him, I also, more controversially i suppose given modern attitudes in this area, don't think that the taxpayer should subsidise the breeding of those whom by virtue of faulty genes are not able to breed without expensive intervention, this is because it weakens the species. I guess you could say that this is an hypocritical position to take, given that i accept that in the future there will be some trans human aspect to our lives. Well excepting that i don't want to stop these people, i just don't want to encourage their choice by having my taxes cover it. I would like my taxes to subsidise people not breeding who are unfit and help those that are fit to have more children. Yes yes, it's a soft eugenics i suppose, but it's better than the full on dysgenics that we've meandered into to the detriment of us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 the x i was talking about was not normal healthcare, which i believe is a universal right, but the desire for body modification due to some mental problem. Again though this is a right for citizens whom must be put first, the burgeoning global non-western population should not be our burden to save, put our own first, if the doctor wants to work pro bono and pay for all the ancillaries, by all means let him, I also, more controversially i suppose given modern attitudes in this area, don't think that the taxpayer should subsidise the breeding of those whom by virtue of faulty genes are not able to breed without medical expensive intervention, this is because it weakens the species. I guess you could say that this is an hypocritical position to take given that i except in the future that there will be some trans human aspect to our lives and you would be right, well excepting that i didn't want to stop these people, i just didn't want to encourage it by having my taxes cover it.

i appreciate how you are laying this out delete- it's thoughtful and calm.

 

but again, doctors do not work pro bono. that means that the humans they encounter will be treated. so to be clear, if you're concerned with resources being misplaced, your issue is primarily with doctors. you will have take on your government and fellow citizen after that.

 

there is likely a better economist that me out there, but many countries have maintained their competitive edge by taking on what you might call highly-fertile immigrants. countries and societies that close out new blood, so speak, maintain some vague and ephermal sense of unity at the expense of their longterm economic outlook.

 

ok! now onto fertility and fitness! forgive the appeal to authority but i have a PhD in genetics. it's mouse genetics, really :) but i can tell you that fitness is super complicated and reproductive fitness is different from the kind of fitness you are probably imagining. also, i haven't checked the literature in the last couple of years, but i have great news! our species' fitness is higher than ever! all this outbreeding, uh, sexing between different kinds of people, is creating some serious hybrid vigor. it is true that individuals who are less fit, if you are considering fitness as it might have been determined 10M-10K years ago, are breeding more, but, if we accept our math models of overall fitness, miscegenation is working great!

 

finally, what do you mean by body modification due a mental problem? are you thinking of sex changes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a PhD in mouse genetics? That's awesome

I've been learning some genetics/biology lately and recessive/dominant genes blew my mind...like if a mother is stressed during pregnancy it's like "oop, these new genes are no longer working...let's go back to the tried and true ones"...evolution is clever af

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bitroast

 

Yeah I think decriminalizing drug use is pretty much the way to go.

 

Also delet, if you think American global hegemony has been bad, just wait until you see what Chinese hegemony looks like.

Yes, that was kind of my point.

 

As for drugs, you should be able to do whatever you want with your own body (Well except strap bombs to it and walk into a shopping centre), but if that leaves you starving in the gutter, you take responsibility for your actions and i'm not paying for your body modification fetish.

:^) lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a PhD in mouse genetics? That's awesome

I've been learning some genetics/biology lately and recessive/dominant genes blew my mind...like if a mother is stressed during pregnancy it's like "oop, these new genes are no longer working...let's go back to the tried and true ones"...evolution is clever af

 

I wouldn't describe dominant/recessive that way, but I'm glad you're psyched about genetics! It's outdated, although I've read a fair amount of EO Wilson and I can't say I totally understand why it's outdated, and EVEN IF IT IS it is in around the edges, but The Selfish Gene is probably the best intro to genetics you can read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i know a lot of air force guys married to filipino women. they never talk about this side of things

 

Had a fair amount of friends with Filipino moms when I was an air force brat in Okinawa. One even moved there right after the Clark AB shutdown when the volcano erupted. Their views are probably more shaped by American perspectives on it. Also, I don't know much about mid-90s Philippines but I imagine there was a varied incentive to marry an American instead of living there.

 

I imagine too Filipino expats in general have different views on all of it as well, a very large population of them live all over the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the whole point of dominant/recessive genes, no? If a trait wins out but then the environment changes such that the trait is now hugely maladaptive (which would cause a pregnant mother massive stress), if there is no 'revert to last save point' mechanism then goodbye species

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the whole point of dominant/recessive genes, no? If a trait wins out but then the environment changes such that the trait is now hugely maladaptive (which would cause a pregnant mother massive stress), if there is no 'revert to last save point' mechanism then goodbye species

 

dominant / recessive refers to the relationship between versions of a gene and doesn't really "care" about fitness. sometimes dominant / recessive genes have different effects on fitness. there are recessive versions of genes that are maladaptive and there are dominant versions of genes that maladaptive (e.g. Marfan syndrome) and there's also codominance.

 

it's common for this to get confusing because there are selective forces that can make maladaptive recessive alleles stable in populations, so you usually hear about those. the classic example of this is sickle cell anemia where one copy of the bad version makes people resistant to malaria (although some people with one bad version also get sick) and two copies make them very sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine meth is a big thing in the Philippines like it is in Thailand? What drugs is errybody addicted to out there? 

 

Off topic sorta - I read an article recently about some Aussie or Brit DJ that was over in one of those party islands in Thailand and got busted for having 60 ecstasy pills on him. The poor dude got a life sentence. I hear he's possibly eligible for transfer to his own country in 6-8 years but still, that would fucking blow. I don't think the guy did no wrong, cuz the whole 'their country has their laws' thing... but that's a really fucked sentence for some shitty E. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is the whole point of dominant/recessive genes, no? If a trait wins out but then the environment changes such that the trait is now hugely maladaptive (which would cause a pregnant mother massive stress), if there is no 'revert to last save point' mechanism then goodbye species

dominant / recessive refers to the relationship between versions of a gene and doesn't really "care" about fitness. sometimes dominant / recessive genes have different effects on fitness. there are recessive versions of genes that are maladaptive and there are dominant versions of genes that maladaptive (e.g. Marfan syndrome) and there's also codominance.

 

it's common for this to get confusing because there are selective forces that can make maladaptive recessive alleles stable in populations, so you usually hear about those. the classic example of this is sickle cell anemia where one copy of the bad version makes people resistant to malaria (although some people with one bad version also get sick) and two copies make them very sick.

 

Wasn't Fischer's whole idea that dominant/recessive was an insurance plan against hitting evolutionary cul-de-sacs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine meth is a big thing in the Philippines like it is in Thailand? What drugs is errybody addicted to out there? 

 

Off topic sorta - I read an article recently about some Aussie or Brit DJ that was over in one of those party islands in Thailand and got busted for having 60 ecstasy pills on him. The poor dude got a life sentence. I hear he's possibly eligible for transfer to his own country in 6-8 years but still, that would fucking blow. I don't think the guy did no wrong, cuz the whole 'their country has their laws' thing... but that's a really fucked sentence for some shitty E. 

 

Drug charges are very, very harsh in Southeast Asia. Malaysia and Indonesia have the death penalty for certain levels of drug trafficking and have hung Australian and other expat citizens in the past.

 

Some members of the Bali 9 case were executed last year. It was a group of hardened criminal ringleaders with a huge amount of heroin, not one of these "naive tourist set up to carry some pot or pills" scenarios, but still an extreme sentence.

Also, yes the Philippines, Manila specifically, has the highest levels of meth addiction and abuse in the world at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what makes people want to do meth? it sounds horrible. maybe i'm supposed to think that cus of drug education and stuff. but yeah keep that shit away from me pls

 

cheap and hard I guess, it's a "party drug" that's far more potent than coke especially when used during sex. home labs can make it anywhere and early on you could literally by the drugs needed to make it in labs over the counter.

 

In the states it hit the Midwest, sparsely populate mountain west (like really bad, 10%+ of all teens and Montana had taken it at least once in the early 2000s), Appalachia, and generally anywhere rural and poor. I think too working folks who were already taking uppers moved on to it as an alternative to speed (truckers, bikers, rough necks, etc). I spoke with dude who was sobered up from heavy drinking and taking uppers and he was the last guy I'd expect who had ever taken meth but he mentioned using it.

 

I'm sure in the Philippines it's cheap to make and a reliable money maker for dealers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i guess meth is like adderral but a bit better?

 

adderral is for 24 hr all nighters to magically complete end of term papers in college

 

meth is for driving your live off a cliff through a variety of the most elite forms of sad depravity until you end up dying from overdose, STD, or some altercation with some lowlife in jail or in some depressed shithole

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.