ans Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Quick question for you. If the UK Government legalised weed, would you still refer to the users of it as scum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 On what are morals based? Is it what the majority percieve to be 'normal', or what some 'quasi' religion wishes to impose in order to control it's followers, usually for political reasons? Who's morals are we talking about in this thread? Because if it is just a case of 'I believe that smoking canabis is immoral because that's what I've been told' then maybe an adjustment of perspective is required? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nessa Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Not sure that I wish to enter this thread - but here goes as they say First thing I would like to say is that the many different links and points of view are interesting and helpful in making sure that I keep trying to examine and re-evaluate some of my own beliefs and thoughts within my own brain and heart about these issues etc I guess the fact that I am a parent also now influences much of my concern these days - esp when I consider the various tricks of drug dealers to entrap or entice the youngsters etc. Sadly I feel that in addition to freebies and peer pressures - for me the whole risk of her having nonalcoholic drinks laced as well as other substances can now frighten me much more these days than in my own time as a young adult Not sure that I wish to comment upon *conversion parties* with respect to AIDS though as I am still getting my head around the fact that some wish to be infected - whereas others are invited to party without realising there is another agenda and disease involved perhaps? Other horrible stuff going on as well in some spaces here - but think thats different issue so wont digress The main point I wanted to comment on is the need for greater discussions and exploring our different values and moralities as best we can etc Question is though how to we balance choice and morality into our wider society still? Kinda like where do we draw our lines for ourselves and our youngsters and for our society and governance etc?? Reflecting on the issues in this topic as well as what is perhaps happening in society around me presently - I am hoping that with more discussions concerning morality and law which are permitted to take place - well that they will all raise some vital questions or inspiration in my consciousness and awareness imho For example I do not mean to go too offtopic but I know that I am really struggling to verbalise my thoughts and feelings concerning a different issue of consent and morality and laws!!! This is specifically with respect to a series of criminal cases involving police officers unfortunately Without getting too detailed, the basic gen is simply that some married officers used to engage in group sex with drunken teenage girls - and batons or other objects were part of the mens sexual experience etc A number of court cases have evolved and while a number of officers were not convicted on any charges of rape [these are historical cases] and for the acquittals issues of consent or victim blaming were utilised as their main defense with each victim having separate trials testifying to a group of accused defendents etc BUT there have also been some convictions for abduction and rape, so at least two policemen in prison now along with some other men involved in these particular group sex worlds of the 1980s etc Similar characteristics for the crimes alleged with convictions or acquittals - however any common patterns were excluded during presentation to the juries etc The difficult thing for me is the various admissions from this officers own mouth!! He considers his behaviour as him being simply a Tomcat and he did nothing wrong. There was even a QC statement that half the country indulged in group sex etc He does seem to feel a very very little bit of remorse for cheating on his former wife and children but he is absolutely furious at his teenage accusers who are all now grownup adults etc Not sure what his domestic history is but his current defacto is also a police officer and she has stood by her man during these very long trials and such like etc Another officers wife works for the Ministry of Justice and she attempted to alibi her incarcerated husband by creating stories until exposed by the Prosecution in the latest casetrial etc The most senior officer involved was also an undercover officer so it seems his first wife was originally the girlfriend of a dealer he locked up etc As an aside very recently and during his suspension on top wages - his neighbours were arrested with a drug lab that he had apparently never noticed etc Sorry its quite complicated story, and couple of years of piecemeal court and media coverage involved here etc Although this very senior officer walked from court after his second or third victim trial - he has not just badmouthed his accusers but he has also accused now his colleagues of undertaking prosecutions for political reasons etc I also understand there are other victims who have been too frightened to press charges and other cases which have since been abandoned due to the desturction of evidence or actions of fellow officers during questionable investigations etc Suppression orders have also been granted and then lifted causing some public outcry, and there have also been some Inquiries launched by Government here into deeper investigations and reviews of Evidence Laws and Victim Supports etc There has been some huge upsets about trusting the police raised now in different social settings, and unfortunately current serving officers have been facing a bit of backlash while one of their bosses has been on suspension etc This has now progressed from being a possible handful of dodgy officers to perhaps tainting the entire force and so a number of people are now seeking much wider justice and accountability etc Others are unfortunately exploiting these cases as well The difficulty that I am having with this case is that this officer is totally expecting to get his job back as Commander etc He has vowed to fight to be reinstated in fact as he is so confident that his admissions of group sex, object sex, sodomy and other such like activities with 16 to 18 year old girls is totally legal and their testimony of being raped or exploited means nothing etc I guess for me this case involves all the messy ingredients of a huge sh*tstorm when drugs, sex, law and consent or choice are being argued by some individuals who wish to pursue their own recreational activity etc In a way the slippery slopes and issues which have been highlighted by posters in this thread have kinda all collided in a real life type scandal here for me .... and the same polarisation of opinions is happening unfortunately Not sure what else to say now ..... how I do want to emphasis that I think its very important that these issues get discussed and even if its hard going sometimes ... thats gotta be better than being apathetic and letting our children face situations where their choices and wellbeing are being diminished or destroyed imho .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Quick question for you. If the UK Government legalised weed, would you still refer to the users of it as scum? To be honest, no. Immoral, weak willed, selfish, hedonistic, and a whole lot more far from complimentary terms, but scum? No. I may think of them as being scum by my own standards, but would stop short of using the term openly as by the accepted standards of society they are no worse than ‘non social’ users of alcohol, people who drink not as a social thing but for the effect. I reserve the use of ‘scum’ for criminals and those who operate within the letter of the law yet breach the spirit of the law. On the matter of scum, interesting that Julie has decided not to appeal. Flagellation, necrophilia, and bestiality springs to my mind as to why this might be.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 On what are morals based? Is it what the majority percieve to be 'normal', or what some 'quasi' religion wishes to impose in order to control it's followers, usually for political reasons? In MY opinion good morality is based on what is wholesome and beneficial on a physically and mental health basis to a person, and the society in which that person lives. Who's morals are we talking about in this thread? Because if it is just a case of 'I believe that smoking canabis is immoral because that's what I've been told' then maybe an adjustment of perspective is required? In my view I believe that the use of cannabis is immoral because it is against the law of the land and breaking the law is an immoral act. (but see an earlier post re ‘The Nuremburg Question’ which addresses immoral laws) Nessa --- a damm fine contribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the mo beats experience Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Quick question for you. If the UK Government legalised weed, would you still refer to the users of it as scum? To be honest, no. Immoral, weak willed, selfish, hedonistic, and a whole lot more far from complimentary terms, but scum? No. I may think of them as being scum by my own standards, but would stop short of using the term openly as by the accepted standards of society they are no worse than ‘non social’ users of alcohol, people who drink not as a social thing but for the effect. I reserve the use of ‘scum’ for criminals and those who operate within the letter of the law yet breach the spirit of the law. On the matter of scum, interesting that Julie has decided not to appeal. Flagellation, necrophilia, and bestiality springs to my mind as to why this might be.. Define breaching the "spirit" of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Define breaching the "spirit" of the law. Here’s my understanding. The spirit of a law is the intent that the people had of it when the law was written and approved. The letter of the law is what can be done or not done by interpretation of the wording of a law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 To be honest, no. Liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nessa Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Thanks Rog as was not sure if it was one of my usual middle of the night waffles lol Think I am still struggling here though to come to terms with some of the shocking revelations and admissions unfortunately ie not wishing to comment too much about different aspects of these particular cases!! Not sure I am ready to comment on how I even begin to perceive some of the issues involving this admitted behaviour of some police officers &/or their immorality or seeming corruption sadly Rog - but one day maybe I know that one of the Commission Reports is due for release before the end of the month and that the court case victims have been excluded from this process due to the criminal trials which have just concluded .... so yeah the Prime Minister here has warned it may be grim reading etc Another trial is planned later in the year to deal with another senior officer perverting the course of justice so some more names and details are expected to be placed in the public domain then etc I guess being a bit of a reader and researcher when I can outside of doing my usual parent worry here Rog .... well I do worry that it will only be the tip of an iceberg etc I know this report coming out on Police Conduct did have very limited terms of reference for the Inquiry Remit so many folks I know IRL may have been too scared to contribute sadly. Now it seems that even despite some of these silent voices - there were still another 200 victims who were permitted to speak up - and many substantiated investigations now I just know I am not looking forward to the report being released Rog... and bottomine I reckon this could cause some major strife and hard times in some places imho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4mbi Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Here's my understanding. The spirit of a law is the intent that the people had of it when the law was written and approved. The letter of the law is what can be done or not done by interpretation of the wording of a law. Yet according to your previous post, there is such thing as an absolute morality? If the law does not have the intent of the people who wrote and approved it, then surely it is a badly written law ? The "spirit" of the law is an entirely subjective concept! there are always two sides to an argument and very, very rarely is anything clear cut black and white. There are however, lots of shades of grey. this thread is entering the realms of philosophy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 What an idiot. Its dickheads like you PK that've made the drugs problem we have today. Well, slinkydevil, care to point out where I have portrayed that frenzied knife attacks under the influence of alcohol are somehow OK compared to those that take place under the influence of cannabis???? I didn't say you had. Again you have missed my point. Well slinkydevil, here is a little fact you may not like - alcohol is distributed under license. So you are sure plenty of frenzied knife attacks have been under the influence of alcohol? Fine - let's see your figures boy.... Will they somehow mean that frenzied knife attacks committed under the influence of cannabis are somehow ok? Don't think so....... Feeble attempt, sounds like you are pissed to me! Your a sad sad individual trying to use this case to prove your deeply flawed views. Why dont you ignore the rest of the facts of the case stated in court. Namely the defendant WAS under the influence of alcohol when the crimes were committed, the defendant DID have existing mental health problems, the defendant DID have an unhealthy obsession with knives etc. Therefore lets ban all alcohol everywhere, lets lock up anyone with the slightest hint of any mental health problems and lets ban all knives including hunting, fishing, cooking etc etc. Jeez PK you are the true President of the Muppet society !!!!! The Director of Re-Cover ( http://www.re-cover.org.uk/ ) was on R4 PM yesterday trying to get across the message that cannabis IS dangerous. We all know the dangers of alcohol. It would seem that the "users" above are in complete denial about cannabis. So much so they're reduced to accusing those against illegal drugs like me of causing the drugs problem we have today, that I have invented "friends" to back up the case against cannabis (not that it needs any) and that I should somehow impose a totalitarian state to stop it's use - even though there are laws against it anyway. In a step away from tradition on here why don't you actually try reasoned argument backed up by facts as opposed to the usual insults and nebulous denials that what I say is a feeble attempt (at what exactly?) and that I don't know what I'm talking about because, errrrr, because you say so! Your pathetic attempts to justify illegal behaviour are just that - pathetic attempts. The expression "Dream On" would appear to be particularly apt in your case....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 To be honest, no. Liar. Fool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 To be honest, no. Liar. Fool Is this the Mallets Mallet thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Fool Better an honest fool than a lying hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Instances such as the policemen abusing people amount to gross immorality and I really don't think that, despite what some may say, there is any justification in defending it! Taking a mild drug and harming yourself, if you are indeed harming yourself, doesn't seem immoral to me! I stand to be corrected by those more knowledgable. Rather like smoking and drinking, which although proven to cause harm to both the user and possibly others, is not particularly immoral. What is immoral, is after taking said substances, causing harm either through violence or coersion. This is true for anything in life. The average drinker, smoker or drug user does none of these! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.