gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (10/02/87)
rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) wrote: > Since taking drugs puts your brain in a state where the ability of that > brain to make decisions is drastically impaired, obviously even you agree > that driving (and probably other things) should be off limits. Since sitting in front of a terminal posting to alt.drugs puts your brain in a state where the ability of that brain to make decisions is drastically impaired, obviously even you agree that posting (and probably other things) should be off limits. > But what > you keep ignoring is that the same things that cause you to lose the mental > acuity necessary to drive a car safely also cause you to lose the mental > acuity necessary to decide whether or not you can or should drive a car! > "I'm fine, no problem!" How many people have you heard saying this at > a party? But what you keep ignoring is that the same things that cause you to lose the mental acuity necessary to post safely also cause you to lose the mental acuity necessary to decide whether or not you can or should post! "My email bounced, no problem, I'll just post". How many people have you seen saying this on the net? > >...but why do you persist on equating "use of drugs" with "driving while > >impaired"? > > Because the use of drugs leads to a state of judgmental deterioration that > can lead not only to making dangerous decisions when doing something like > driving, it can also lead to dangerous decisions like "I'm straight enough > to drive" or "Those neighbors of mine are really commies or nazis" or > who knows what. > --Rhonda Because the use of netnews leads to a state of judgmental deterioration that can lead not only to making dangerous decisions when doing something like posting, it can also lead to dangerous decisions like "I'm calm enough run rn" or "Those druggie neighbors of mine should all be locked up" or who knows what. --John-- [Posted while in a severely deteriorated state totally unrelated to the use of drugs, or netnews. Lack of sleep is what's doing me in, let's have zones where you are allowed to stay up all night and zones where you have to go to bed at 8PM.] [Actually I, in my judgement-impaired state, think that the best idea would be to have zones where it is totally safe. Where you can go and nobody can hurt you and nothing can touch you. Let all those crazies run around and despoil the earth and take drugs and shoot each other and detonate nuclear explosives and they will have no effect on you and your friends in the safe zone. Around here they call such zones "graveyards". I'm not suggesting that Rhonda take up residence there, but it sounds like that's the level of safety and freedom from risk that she's looking for.] -- {dasys1,ncoast,well,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com
rhonda@chinet.UUCP (10/04/87)
I have absolutely no idea what on earth John Gilmore was trying to say in his latest response to me. The fact that he cross posted it to alt.flame probably gives a clue. John, if your goal in posting was to prove beyond a doubt that you had nothing more to say on the subject that could be said in a coherent manner, you succeeded admirably. John, I have opinions about the drugs issue that are simply antithetical to yours. And I have shown good reasons why a person might hold such a position, reasons you don't seem to like very much. But they are valid reasons nonetheless, and if you still hold your personal position regarding why your freedom to take drugs nullifies other people's rights not to be endangered by your whimsy, then I would be very interested in hearing the reasons for that. If you can't come up with them, if you have nothing more to say than flame, then just cool out, OK? I don't need to turn this into a flame war any more than you do. If you disagree with me, fine, tell me why. But going off of the deep end and ranting and flaming serves no one. In article <3110@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >Since sitting in front of a terminal posting to alt.drugs puts your brain >in a state where the ability of that brain to make decisions is drastically >impaired, obviously even you agree that posting (and probably other things) >should be off limits. > >But what you keep ignoring is that the same things that cause you to lose >the mental acuity necessary to post safely also cause you to lose the >mental acuity necessary to decide whether or not you can or should post! >"My email bounced, no problem, I'll just post". How many people have you >seen saying this on the net? > >Because the use of netnews leads to a state of judgmental deterioration that >can lead not only to making dangerous decisions when doing something like >posting, it can also lead to dangerous decisions like "I'm calm enough >run rn" or "Those druggie neighbors of mine should all be locked up" or >who knows what. --John-- > >[Posted while in a severely deteriorated state totally unrelated to the use >of drugs, or netnews. Lack of sleep is what's doing me in, let's have >zones where you are allowed to stay up all night and zones where you have >to go to bed at 8PM.] > >[Actually I, in my judgement-impaired state, think that the best idea >would be to have zones where it is totally safe. Where you can go and >nobody can hurt you and nothing can touch you. Let all those crazies >run around and despoil the earth and take drugs and shoot each other >and detonate nuclear explosives and they will have no effect on you and >your friends in the safe zone. > >Around here they call such zones "graveyards". I'm not suggesting that >Rhonda take up residence there, but it sounds like that's the level of >safety and freedom from risk that she's looking for.] Sorry, John, the history of human society involves efforts at making life safer while still allowing freedom for individuals. It's called compromise. You want to do things, but thyey adversely affedt other people, so you are urged to refrain, and the rules of the society may proffer punishment if you choose to do it anyway. What is it you have against compromise? Are your rights to do as you please more important than other people's rights not to be adversely affected by you? --Rhonda