Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

mexicoman    

Rank #5568 on Content
mexicoman Avatar Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to mexicoman Block mexicoman Invite mexicoman to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 22
Date Signed Up:12/11/2010
Last Login:11/22/2014
Location:Washington
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#5568
Comment Ranking:#13495
Highest Content Rank:#4879
Highest Comment Rank:#8067
Content Thumbs: 1560 total,  1949 ,  389
Comment Thumbs: 1423 total,  1990 ,  567
Content Level Progress: 80% (80/100)
Level 114 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 115 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 78% (78/100)
Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:122099
Times Content Favorited:100 times
Total Comments Made:680
FJ Points:3000
Favorite Tags: the (8) | game (5) | for (3) | You (3) | a (2) | are (2) | black (2) | in (2) | kill (2) | Lost (2) | omegle (2) | on (2) | tags (2) | this (2) | to (2) | your (2)

latest user's comments

#44198 - Well yeah, but the reason it pissed me off was because its ind…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/07/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #44202 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Feminist race baiter logic..
#44181 - I think it is unfair to say that privilege is calculable, all …  [+] (3 new replies) 08/07/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #44183 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Well Its mostly a joke
User avatar #44198 - mexicoman (08/07/2013) [-]
Well yeah, but the reason it pissed me off was because its indicative of this internet culture that say privilege is something that can be assumed and applied to people based off of how they fit into certain brackets. That kind of mindset poisons the well in how we give merit to people, instead of individuals they are reduced down to how much the people who look like them or act like them are generally treated, and the chart reminds me of how this simplistic world view has permeated the culture.
User avatar #44202 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Feminist race baiter logic..
#44165 - I don't think that a government needs to be big and authoritar… 08/07/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#44116 - That begs the question of why they are under an embargo.  [+] (3 new replies) 08/07/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #44119 - oxan (08/07/2013) [-]
Because the bourgeoisie want to weaken socialist states?

You know, the whole 'strangle the Bolshevik baby in its crib' thing?
User avatar #44151 - byposted (08/07/2013) [-]
North Korea was well subsidized by Moscow until the entire apparatus fell. It remains today a state stuck in the past. If it was not apposed by the entire world, it would be in no better shape with their current internal policies than what is south-east Asia, in fact, worse than the mean.
User avatar #44163 - oxan (08/07/2013) [-]
It's almost entirely self-sufficient because it's incredibly isolated.

Until the fall of the Eastern Bloc, trade with the USSR accounted for 50% of all trade of the DPRK. To think that a country wouldn't struggle when it's largest trading partner falls is a big mistake. To think that if the Eastern Bloc was still here that the DPRK wouldn't be functioning better is a bigger mistake.
#44113 - I don't like the assumptions it makes.  [+] (5 new replies) 08/07/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #44129 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Explain.
User avatar #44181 - mexicoman (08/07/2013) [-]
I think it is unfair to say that privilege is calculable, all of these judgements about the degree of privileges are subjective. There is no formula that measures privilege. And the practical differences in treatment change depending on your environment.
User avatar #44183 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Well Its mostly a joke
User avatar #44198 - mexicoman (08/07/2013) [-]
Well yeah, but the reason it pissed me off was because its indicative of this internet culture that say privilege is something that can be assumed and applied to people based off of how they fit into certain brackets. That kind of mindset poisons the well in how we give merit to people, instead of individuals they are reduced down to how much the people who look like them or act like them are generally treated, and the chart reminds me of how this simplistic world view has permeated the culture.
User avatar #44202 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Feminist race baiter logic..
#44105 - Shalom, comrade.  [+] (8 new replies) 08/07/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #44130 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Comrade?

Excuse me what did you say to me foolish mortal?
User avatar #44134 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
He said "shalom comrade".
User avatar #44136 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
I know
User avatar #44138 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
Then why did you ask?
User avatar #44143 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Because I'm an asshole .
User avatar #44146 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
Dennis Leary  ~ "I'm An Asshole - and Damn Proud of it" Good song.
User avatar #44153 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
I laugh at my own jokes.
User avatar #44150 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Yup.
#44101 - Because the north koreans have no freedom and just look at how…  [+] (5 new replies) 08/07/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #44112 - oxan (08/07/2013) [-]
Yeah, that's what happens when you're under embargo and only a small percentage of your land is arable.
User avatar #44116 - mexicoman (08/07/2013) [-]
That begs the question of why they are under an embargo.
User avatar #44119 - oxan (08/07/2013) [-]
Because the bourgeoisie want to weaken socialist states?

You know, the whole 'strangle the Bolshevik baby in its crib' thing?
User avatar #44151 - byposted (08/07/2013) [-]
North Korea was well subsidized by Moscow until the entire apparatus fell. It remains today a state stuck in the past. If it was not apposed by the entire world, it would be in no better shape with their current internal policies than what is south-east Asia, in fact, worse than the mean.
User avatar #44163 - oxan (08/07/2013) [-]
It's almost entirely self-sufficient because it's incredibly isolated.

Until the fall of the Eastern Bloc, trade with the USSR accounted for 50% of all trade of the DPRK. To think that a country wouldn't struggle when it's largest trading partner falls is a big mistake. To think that if the Eastern Bloc was still here that the DPRK wouldn't be functioning better is a bigger mistake.
#44097 - Well im not a hardcore libertarian. I was saying that the lowe…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/07/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#44121 - pebar (08/07/2013) [-]
Not the whole quadrant, just the far lower left corner. The further left you go, the more things are socialized, like public schools and healthcare. If you go way left, the common businesses (let's say shoe makers) will also be socialized. Many cases, socialized businesses are funded by taxes so they are allowed to stay free, the shoe maker would not be bringing in revenue so it would have to work like that. In the most extreme left, communism, all workers work together for the benefit of society as a whole. The farmer raises the cow, the butcher collects the hide, the tanner fixes the leather, the shoe maker creates the shoe, all working together. The communists on this board, like Oxan, would tell you that there would need to be a transition period, a time when capitalist societies are torn down by force and replaced with council managed "soviet" economic planners; this being done because people do not like to share, it's all "mine mine mine".
And that's my point: people are greedy. People do not like being taxed and when taxes are insanely high to fund socialized organizations, you need a big authoritarian government to enforce and collect that tax.
User avatar #44165 - mexicoman (08/07/2013) [-]
I don't think that a government needs to be big and authoritarian in order to provide social services. If done intelligently we could design a government that can fulfill its functions without overreach. Just because the government fulfills functions does not mean it has to then tap our phones and be big brother. In the first place I believe the government is obligated to provide services that can't be trusted solely in the hands of private industry. The problem with unregulated capitalism is the inherent greed you can assume will occur in at least enough people. Market forces dictate that those who constrain themselves for the sake of ethics will in many ways be worse off than a competitor who does not care. If you have peoples lives and liberties come down to a profit motive people are going to get hurt, corners will be cut. Because someone somewhere is willing to go that extra sleazy step to make another buck, and not every unethical practice can be illegal. The private industry is meant to run for profit. Government isn't meant to do that, so I believe that it should offer services in industries such as the fire department, police, hospitals, prisons, and so on. This is based on a need to protect people from the malicious practices of business. In my opinion that is what the government is for, to protect people. That being said I don't think its necessary to squeeze out private industry in these functions, and I think that the government should be limited to those functions. There should never be a government run soda company or government run cell phone company. Those are not functions of the economy that if denied to people would necessarily imply victimization and a violation of ones rights. The enforcement of a well built system of law that incapacitates threats to society and the intelligent application of these services could exist with the ideals of personal liberty still intact.
#44091 - I don't ideologically disagree with taxing people. Most hardco…  [+] (4 new replies) 08/07/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #44096 - pebar (08/07/2013) [-]
most hard core libertarians are further right
User avatar #44097 - mexicoman (08/07/2013) [-]
Well im not a hardcore libertarian. I was saying that the lower left quadrant doesn't necessarily imply disagreeing with the government collecting taxes.
#44121 - pebar (08/07/2013) [-]
Not the whole quadrant, just the far lower left corner. The further left you go, the more things are socialized, like public schools and healthcare. If you go way left, the common businesses (let's say shoe makers) will also be socialized. Many cases, socialized businesses are funded by taxes so they are allowed to stay free, the shoe maker would not be bringing in revenue so it would have to work like that. In the most extreme left, communism, all workers work together for the benefit of society as a whole. The farmer raises the cow, the butcher collects the hide, the tanner fixes the leather, the shoe maker creates the shoe, all working together. The communists on this board, like Oxan, would tell you that there would need to be a transition period, a time when capitalist societies are torn down by force and replaced with council managed "soviet" economic planners; this being done because people do not like to share, it's all "mine mine mine".
And that's my point: people are greedy. People do not like being taxed and when taxes are insanely high to fund socialized organizations, you need a big authoritarian government to enforce and collect that tax.
User avatar #44165 - mexicoman (08/07/2013) [-]
I don't think that a government needs to be big and authoritarian in order to provide social services. If done intelligently we could design a government that can fulfill its functions without overreach. Just because the government fulfills functions does not mean it has to then tap our phones and be big brother. In the first place I believe the government is obligated to provide services that can't be trusted solely in the hands of private industry. The problem with unregulated capitalism is the inherent greed you can assume will occur in at least enough people. Market forces dictate that those who constrain themselves for the sake of ethics will in many ways be worse off than a competitor who does not care. If you have peoples lives and liberties come down to a profit motive people are going to get hurt, corners will be cut. Because someone somewhere is willing to go that extra sleazy step to make another buck, and not every unethical practice can be illegal. The private industry is meant to run for profit. Government isn't meant to do that, so I believe that it should offer services in industries such as the fire department, police, hospitals, prisons, and so on. This is based on a need to protect people from the malicious practices of business. In my opinion that is what the government is for, to protect people. That being said I don't think its necessary to squeeze out private industry in these functions, and I think that the government should be limited to those functions. There should never be a government run soda company or government run cell phone company. Those are not functions of the economy that if denied to people would necessarily imply victimization and a violation of ones rights. The enforcement of a well built system of law that incapacitates threats to society and the intelligent application of these services could exist with the ideals of personal liberty still intact.
#44087 - Picture 08/07/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#44082 - Ask the dude who got this score on the political compass quiz anything  [+] (46 new replies) 08/07/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#44099 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Why haven't you been educated.

<political board and Religious board.
User avatar #44139 - byposted (08/07/2013) [-]
le feel when I'm not represented on the blue master square.
User avatar #44141 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Master blue square? Don't you mean master purple square?
User avatar #44157 - byposted (08/07/2013) [-]
Purple is like the little cousin of blue. Green, however, is the drunk uncle.
User avatar #44161 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Great now I feel like /lgbt/ trying to cozy up to /pol/
User avatar #44159 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
I prefer the term high.
User avatar #44118 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
I can't count how many times I've been asked to be added to that. I mean, you have zlamous, and he's been gone for Christ knows how long.
User avatar #44128 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
I liked him.
User avatar #44131 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
Point is, any chance that I could be added?
User avatar #44280 - teoberry (08/07/2013) [-]
k ill do it
User avatar #44295 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
thx for great justice.
User avatar #44132 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
idk ask the guy who made it to start it up again.
User avatar #44135 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
Who would that be? Does he still frequent the boards?
User avatar #44137 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
I think lulz did it.
User avatar #44140 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
lulzforsandyhook?
User avatar #44279 - teoberry (08/07/2013) [-]
he got banned
User avatar #44142 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Yup
User avatar #44144 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
K. That should get his attention.
User avatar #44145 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
I haven't seen him in a while.
User avatar #44147 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
You know anyone else who could do it?
User avatar #44148 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Anyone its not that hard.
User avatar #44149 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
Then you have no excuse. Get going.
User avatar #44152 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
But. You see...

I'm an asshole
User avatar #44155 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
Dennis Leary  ~ "I'm An Asshole - and Damn Proud of it" Good song.
User avatar #44156 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Indeed.
User avatar #44105 - mexicoman (08/07/2013) [-]
Shalom, comrade.
User avatar #44130 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Comrade?

Excuse me what did you say to me foolish mortal?
User avatar #44134 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
He said "shalom comrade".
User avatar #44136 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
I know
User avatar #44138 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
Then why did you ask?
User avatar #44143 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Because I'm an asshole .
User avatar #44146 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
Dennis Leary  ~ "I'm An Asshole - and Damn Proud of it" Good song.
User avatar #44153 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
I laugh at my own jokes.
User avatar #44150 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Yup.
User avatar #44089 - pebar (08/07/2013) [-]
IMO anything in the lower left corner is kind of naive because you're asking people to share their own wealth without being forced by the gov. Only a society with a lot of like minded people would be able to function like that.
User avatar #44297 - jewishcommunazi (08/07/2013) [-]
Individualist anarchism is most likely located in the far-low; far-left, but I'm not exactly sure of how it really is, just the basic stuff. Also, the far-left ideas usually have the common goal that includes abolishing wealth, not share it.
User avatar #44091 - mexicoman (08/07/2013) [-]
I don't ideologically disagree with taxing people. Most hardcore libertarians don't to my knowledge.
User avatar #44096 - pebar (08/07/2013) [-]
most hard core libertarians are further right
User avatar #44097 - mexicoman (08/07/2013) [-]
Well im not a hardcore libertarian. I was saying that the lower left quadrant doesn't necessarily imply disagreeing with the government collecting taxes.
#44121 - pebar (08/07/2013) [-]
Not the whole quadrant, just the far lower left corner. The further left you go, the more things are socialized, like public schools and healthcare. If you go way left, the common businesses (let's say shoe makers) will also be socialized. Many cases, socialized businesses are funded by taxes so they are allowed to stay free, the shoe maker would not be bringing in revenue so it would have to work like that. In the most extreme left, communism, all workers work together for the benefit of society as a whole. The farmer raises the cow, the butcher collects the hide, the tanner fixes the leather, the shoe maker creates the shoe, all working together. The communists on this board, like Oxan, would tell you that there would need to be a transition period, a time when capitalist societies are torn down by force and replaced with council managed "soviet" economic planners; this being done because people do not like to share, it's all "mine mine mine".
And that's my point: people are greedy. People do not like being taxed and when taxes are insanely high to fund socialized organizations, you need a big authoritarian government to enforce and collect that tax.
User avatar #44165 - mexicoman (08/07/2013) [-]
I don't think that a government needs to be big and authoritarian in order to provide social services. If done intelligently we could design a government that can fulfill its functions without overreach. Just because the government fulfills functions does not mean it has to then tap our phones and be big brother. In the first place I believe the government is obligated to provide services that can't be trusted solely in the hands of private industry. The problem with unregulated capitalism is the inherent greed you can assume will occur in at least enough people. Market forces dictate that those who constrain themselves for the sake of ethics will in many ways be worse off than a competitor who does not care. If you have peoples lives and liberties come down to a profit motive people are going to get hurt, corners will be cut. Because someone somewhere is willing to go that extra sleazy step to make another buck, and not every unethical practice can be illegal. The private industry is meant to run for profit. Government isn't meant to do that, so I believe that it should offer services in industries such as the fire department, police, hospitals, prisons, and so on. This is based on a need to protect people from the malicious practices of business. In my opinion that is what the government is for, to protect people. That being said I don't think its necessary to squeeze out private industry in these functions, and I think that the government should be limited to those functions. There should never be a government run soda company or government run cell phone company. Those are not functions of the economy that if denied to people would necessarily imply victimization and a violation of ones rights. The enforcement of a well built system of law that incapacitates threats to society and the intelligent application of these services could exist with the ideals of personal liberty still intact.
#44084 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
How does it feel being me?
#44281 - teoberry (08/07/2013) [-]
#44426 - loomiss (08/08/2013) [-]
User avatar #44296 - feelythefeel (08/07/2013) [-]
Thx for great justice.
#44087 - mexicoman (08/07/2013) [-]
#44079 - 85 Reading this pissed me off.  [+] (8 new replies) 08/07/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #44257 - jewishcommunazi (08/07/2013) [-]
I think it was just made as some parody.
User avatar #44111 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Why.
User avatar #44113 - mexicoman (08/07/2013) [-]
I don't like the assumptions it makes.
User avatar #44129 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Explain.
User avatar #44181 - mexicoman (08/07/2013) [-]
I think it is unfair to say that privilege is calculable, all of these judgements about the degree of privileges are subjective. There is no formula that measures privilege. And the practical differences in treatment change depending on your environment.
User avatar #44183 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Well Its mostly a joke
User avatar #44198 - mexicoman (08/07/2013) [-]
Well yeah, but the reason it pissed me off was because its indicative of this internet culture that say privilege is something that can be assumed and applied to people based off of how they fit into certain brackets. That kind of mindset poisons the well in how we give merit to people, instead of individuals they are reduced down to how much the people who look like them or act like them are generally treated, and the chart reminds me of how this simplistic world view has permeated the culture.
User avatar #44202 - undeadwill (08/07/2013) [-]
Feminist race baiter logic..
#46 - I wish there was a genre of porn around this. Instaboner  [+] (1 new reply) 08/05/2013 on if i was a girl +16
User avatar #70 - cmcdftw (08/05/2013) [-]
Pretty sure its just thirsty bitches haha
#19 - Not if their beliefs are unethical. 08/01/2013 on Did Zac Efron just become... -1
#131 - Well this has scared me away from almost all those drugs. …  [+] (1 new reply) 07/31/2013 on One hell of a drug 0
User avatar #133 - vexaton (07/31/2013) [-]
He's done a lot more. Google it ;)
#27 - I see what they mean with the suspicion but I think that we ju…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/30/2013 on FJ +5
User avatar #28 - burtgasm (07/30/2013) [-]
the resolutiob of the gif is pretty bad so that's probably the reason
User avatar #29 - burtgasm (07/30/2013) [-]
resolution*
#31 - Damn, that dude had the same mustache I do. GIF unrel…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/30/2013 on awesome 0
User avatar #46 - uguuu (07/30/2013) [-]
That us more like upper lip furr
#34 - sircollinshaw has deleted their comment.
#478 - You know the police didn't even arrest George Zimmerman until … 07/17/2013 on Double standards 0
#41637 - Social change insofar as you would expect from an institution … 07/16/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#41580 - That's not correct. I know it can look that way when you consi…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/16/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #41595 - oxan (07/16/2013) [-]
I'll concede that acting as a mechanism for social change is different from social engineering. However, what you have described is the law acting as a mechanism for social change. Thus, I believe my point remains.
User avatar #41637 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
Social change insofar as you would expect from an institution designed to protect people's freedoms and protect people from force. Those instances were just the law finally doing its job. Just because the law changed to compensate for progress in human tolerance for those changes does not really mean much other than to say its sad that people for so long artificially changed the nature of the justice system to fit their prejudices. The law might change society, but that is not its purpose.
#41489 - No, the law is not meant for social engineering. Its mean to p…  [+] (4 new replies) 07/16/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #41538 - oxan (07/16/2013) [-]
>No, the law is not meant for social engineering.
Actually, acting as a mechanism for social change is one of the purposes for law.
User avatar #41580 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
That's not correct. I know it can look that way when you consider the civil rights movement, the abolition of slavery, and the gay marriage movement but it isn't. Because social engineering is defined by merriam websters dictionary as "management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society : applied social science", and that doesn't fit what those events did to change things. What those events were really amounted the deconstruction of institutionalized persecution. It was the ending of forms social engineering through subjugation when you think about it. This wasn't the management of human beings, this was halting the actions of people who were trying to do that themselves.
User avatar #41595 - oxan (07/16/2013) [-]
I'll concede that acting as a mechanism for social change is different from social engineering. However, what you have described is the law acting as a mechanism for social change. Thus, I believe my point remains.
User avatar #41637 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
Social change insofar as you would expect from an institution designed to protect people's freedoms and protect people from force. Those instances were just the law finally doing its job. Just because the law changed to compensate for progress in human tolerance for those changes does not really mean much other than to say its sad that people for so long artificially changed the nature of the justice system to fit their prejudices. The law might change society, but that is not its purpose.
#77 - Who the **** risks punishment for Honey Nut O's? 07/13/2013 on OH! BURN -1
#40881 - You misunderstand the law and what its there for. The law is m…  [+] (6 new replies) 07/12/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #41330 - naxo (07/14/2013) [-]
Perhaps it has no repercussions for anyone other than you. However, if you are in the percentage that develops anxiety, depression or psychosis, then it begins to affect the people around you.

There have been a number of studies showing a relationship between attempted suicides and cannabis use. I think it's pretty clear that suicide is a negative thing and that the law should work to reduce suicide rates..
User avatar #41489 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
No, the law is not meant for social engineering. Its mean to protect people from victimization. I don't believe that anyone's right to do something should be influenced by the worst worst possible outcomes of such a thing. The law should only influence people's rights when they impede on the rights of others. If im on my property and im getting stoned because I like it, it is no business of yours. It isn't the governments business either. I would argue against your vague mention of a statistic that correlates suicide with cannabis use, but that would just deviate from the real point. Cigarettes are objectively worse for you than marijuana, but I would still die for the liberty that allows people to smoke them. Its not up to me or the majority of people to say that someone can't smoke a cigarette, it is their choice and they will smoke it if they want to. What you advocate for ultimately builds open disrespect for the law, because it imposes upon people ridiculous standards. When you have a people that mistakes the law's standard for the standard of ethics, that brings you problems. Im not asking you to do any drugs, im not even asking you to be happy about it. Im just asking you to leave drug users alone, and to stop advocating this legal harassment and perpetuation of a corrupt prison industrial complex. Just leave drug users alone, that shouldn't be a heavy request.
User avatar #41538 - oxan (07/16/2013) [-]
>No, the law is not meant for social engineering.
Actually, acting as a mechanism for social change is one of the purposes for law.
User avatar #41580 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
That's not correct. I know it can look that way when you consider the civil rights movement, the abolition of slavery, and the gay marriage movement but it isn't. Because social engineering is defined by merriam websters dictionary as "management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society : applied social science", and that doesn't fit what those events did to change things. What those events were really amounted the deconstruction of institutionalized persecution. It was the ending of forms social engineering through subjugation when you think about it. This wasn't the management of human beings, this was halting the actions of people who were trying to do that themselves.
User avatar #41595 - oxan (07/16/2013) [-]
I'll concede that acting as a mechanism for social change is different from social engineering. However, what you have described is the law acting as a mechanism for social change. Thus, I believe my point remains.
User avatar #41637 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
Social change insofar as you would expect from an institution designed to protect people's freedoms and protect people from force. Those instances were just the law finally doing its job. Just because the law changed to compensate for progress in human tolerance for those changes does not really mean much other than to say its sad that people for so long artificially changed the nature of the justice system to fit their prejudices. The law might change society, but that is not its purpose.
#40836 - Explain to me why your personal preferences should be the law …  [+] (8 new replies) 07/12/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #40860 - naxo (07/12/2013) [-]
Same reason there are laws in almost all societies that prohibit people doing certain things to themselves.

Also because your decisions on what you do with your body have an effect on the people around you and not only yourself.

If you can isolate yourself to the point that no one knows of your existence, then feel free to take all manner of drugs. However, while you are part of a family, a community, a society, you need to stick to the rules of that group.

I am stating my opinion on what I believe the rules should be for a hypothetical society, in which I create the rules (or at least the ones relating drug use).
User avatar #40881 - mexicoman (07/12/2013) [-]
You misunderstand the law and what its there for. The law is meant to protect people from victimization. Drug laws do not fulfill this function. My smoking a joint in no way leads to anyone else being afflicted. Its just me on the couch listening to Pink Floyd. You would put me in jail for this?
User avatar #41330 - naxo (07/14/2013) [-]
Perhaps it has no repercussions for anyone other than you. However, if you are in the percentage that develops anxiety, depression or psychosis, then it begins to affect the people around you.

There have been a number of studies showing a relationship between attempted suicides and cannabis use. I think it's pretty clear that suicide is a negative thing and that the law should work to reduce suicide rates..
User avatar #41489 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
No, the law is not meant for social engineering. Its mean to protect people from victimization. I don't believe that anyone's right to do something should be influenced by the worst worst possible outcomes of such a thing. The law should only influence people's rights when they impede on the rights of others. If im on my property and im getting stoned because I like it, it is no business of yours. It isn't the governments business either. I would argue against your vague mention of a statistic that correlates suicide with cannabis use, but that would just deviate from the real point. Cigarettes are objectively worse for you than marijuana, but I would still die for the liberty that allows people to smoke them. Its not up to me or the majority of people to say that someone can't smoke a cigarette, it is their choice and they will smoke it if they want to. What you advocate for ultimately builds open disrespect for the law, because it imposes upon people ridiculous standards. When you have a people that mistakes the law's standard for the standard of ethics, that brings you problems. Im not asking you to do any drugs, im not even asking you to be happy about it. Im just asking you to leave drug users alone, and to stop advocating this legal harassment and perpetuation of a corrupt prison industrial complex. Just leave drug users alone, that shouldn't be a heavy request.
User avatar #41538 - oxan (07/16/2013) [-]
>No, the law is not meant for social engineering.
Actually, acting as a mechanism for social change is one of the purposes for law.
User avatar #41580 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
That's not correct. I know it can look that way when you consider the civil rights movement, the abolition of slavery, and the gay marriage movement but it isn't. Because social engineering is defined by merriam websters dictionary as "management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society : applied social science", and that doesn't fit what those events did to change things. What those events were really amounted the deconstruction of institutionalized persecution. It was the ending of forms social engineering through subjugation when you think about it. This wasn't the management of human beings, this was halting the actions of people who were trying to do that themselves.
User avatar #41595 - oxan (07/16/2013) [-]
I'll concede that acting as a mechanism for social change is different from social engineering. However, what you have described is the law acting as a mechanism for social change. Thus, I believe my point remains.
User avatar #41637 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
Social change insofar as you would expect from an institution designed to protect people's freedoms and protect people from force. Those instances were just the law finally doing its job. Just because the law changed to compensate for progress in human tolerance for those changes does not really mean much other than to say its sad that people for so long artificially changed the nature of the justice system to fit their prejudices. The law might change society, but that is not its purpose.
#40834 - Drugs can enslave your brain but quite frankly that isn't a gu… 07/12/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2500

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3 - soundofwinter ONLINE (06/27/2014) [-]
**** you
User avatar #2 - sirbonzaiatak (03/25/2011) [-]
LMAO at your post!!! Check out mine and thumb please :)

http://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/1869232/Weekly+Funny+1/
User avatar #1 - iMJesus (03/11/2011) [-]
Lmfao at your post bro, thumbed up, can you thumb this up for me?
http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/1796542/Epic+Breakup/
 Friends (0)