This reminds me of a very good South Park Episode. The Episode was about the world, and how there was no religion, just a bunch of atheists, and instead of people killing each other over which religion was right or wrong, they killed each other over what atheists should call themselves, the point being that no matter what people will find gratuitous reasons to kill each other and stir up trouble, so i would have to say the world really wouldn't be that much different without religion.
Hahaha I actually saw this one last night! The interview is incredible, as I can't believe the interviewer would actually force Leary to stay on the show. He should have received a swift punch in the face for grabbing him like that. I think Leary acted pretty well considering the circumstance that he was in. I think some of what it was, is was acting funny. Like at the beginning "Im under arrest!" Hahaha that had me cracking up. But he at this time in his life he was definitely a little bit more far out. I really do think that he got involved with other drugs other than Psychedelics.
Hahaha "used Psilocybin" is about as loose as a statement as you can get my friend. The man advocated Psychedelics to his death, but none as dearly as the sacred Magic Mushroom. But yes you are correct he was also a very avid user of Cannabis as well. He was a great man, and a very extraordinary thinker, I really encourage you to look him up on Youtube, there are hours upon hours of his lectures and speeches and I learn something new on every one I watch!
Yes I would have to say that there is. I remember an interview of Morgan Freeman and when asked about Black History month, he declared that he doesn't want one, and it doesn't do anything to further the eradication of racism. Because think about it, if black history month,or the recognition of the differences and idiosyncrasies of any different race for that matter, is an attempt to be politically correct and sensitive, than it is a failure, because you are recognizing and vocalizing the differences of us human beings. Like wise, if you are on purposely going out of your way to try to avoid offending someone, because of their race (or anything else for that matter) you are treating them differently because of that thing, which is in a sense racism.
Haha nothing to debate dude! I even would agree with you that I myself prefer Aldous Huxley over Leary. I am not familiar with Ram Dass though. Do you use Psychedelics? You don't have to answer, I just always get delighted when I meet a fellow traveler, because you're right, most people do not want to use LSD, or any Psychedelic substance for that matter, which is very sad and discouraging.
Well you are breaking it down an awful a lot.
I agree that government and economy are intrinsic to each other, but we aren't debating how interconnected which one or the other is. Im just trying to keep it simple, and answer the question. Capitalism is not a form of government (Although as stated by you, it plays an extremely important role in determining the government).
Its all good man, simple misunderstanding. I wasn't trying to lecture you or anything, it is very clear that you know what you are talking, I was just trying to give my opinion. I am not very informed on Leary at all, I have done very minimal reading, and have only seen a couple of interviews.
Im not trying to debate you. I think he was an extremely intelligent man. I think he had a lot of good insights. Feel free to disagree.
Im not trying to lecture you. Once again I am simply stating my opinion.
Yes LSD is only a tool that most people don't know how to use, but never the less, I'm sure you can agree it is an extremely powerful tool.
Capitalism is definitely NOT a form of government, as it is an economic system of how to handle the private sector, as the first argument states. It certainly can have a powerful influence on the government, but no capitalism is not a form of government.
Well technically if you think about it, Do we really KNOW anything in Science? How many things in science can we DEFINITIVELY prove? I mean we can theorize and speculate, but can we can't definitively prove it. We can adhere to a set of theory's that seems the most likely and probably, but that is about it.
Same thing goes for Religion. You can't PROVE it. You are just believing on faith something to be true.
I will agree it is EXTREMELY annoying when your standard run of the mill teenager, goes out and buys a Che Guevara T Shirt (or anything with his face on it for that matter), without knowing a shred of information on the man himself, except that he was a "rebel". I do admit, I am the proud owner of a Che Guevara shirt, but I have done extensive research on his life, read his fantastic biography, and have formed my own opinions free of biases from the political left or right.
While I will agree that at times Leary was lost in his own head, I will have to disagree with your notion that he was an idiot. He was an extremely intelligent man, not to mention a Ph.D of Psychology. He definitely had a more unique perspective on issues, then that of a normal person (That is, someone who has never used LSD before).
Rock on man! Timothy Leary was great, although I myself personally prefer Terence McKenna. I think LSD wasn't the only drug that Leary got involved with, because after watching several of his interviews, he was a little cooky nearing the end of is life.
Probably either Che Guevara. If every communist had the discipline and selflessness that Che Guevara had, Communism would undoubtedly be able to work.
Or, He isn't really a historical figure, but definitely someone who has influenced my thinking in major ways, Terence McKenna .
http://imagecache6.allposters.
http://www.newagethinkers.com/wp-
I would usually say yes, but for the sake of argument Ill say No.
I guess it really depends. You should have been a little bit more specific in your question.
Dictatorship by default is not necessarily a bad thing.
There is a HUGE difference between a DICTATOR and a TYRANT.
The citizens of a nation can live prosperously under a dictator, if he has has the people's and nation's interest at heart.
On the other hand a TYRANT usually only cares about himself, and rules with an Iron Fist.
If the people are living good under a Dictator why rebel? To rebel just because he is a dictator doesn't make sense.
Absolutely agree.
How can we as humans (even more specifically western civilization) claim to be an advanced species, when we haven't even learned to get along with each other? We let stupid and trivial differences such as race,religion, sexual preference, and political affiliation, dictate how we feel towards each other? This isn't advanced thinking. This is sh*t for brained, primal instinct kind of thinking. We are still stuck in "Survival of The Fittest" mindset, when we live in a time and age, where it doesn't have to be that way anymore. Instead of being patient and working out the kinks of the complications that arise, we immediately look to slander and tear down each other, just for the sake of preserving our own egotistical pride and ideologies, because God forbid we get along with someone who thinks differently than us. Just look at western culture,Capitalism and Consumerism. We are glorifying and advocating systems and paradigms that place value on the material possessions one has. The one with the most toys wins. If you aren't a CEO or a business owner, or a surgeon, you don't have value. It preaches go to college, get a degree, and blah blah blah,and than you can be a somebody. We promote consumer junkie psychology.
We the people don't even create culture anymore. Culture creates us. Popular culture is no longer a reflection of what is popular in culture. The Media TELLS culture what is popular. What is this doing? Its diminishing our collective creativity. We are disempowered and maintained by electronic media. How much conscious freedom do we really have?
We promote destructive behavior. The media glorifies destructive habits, such as drinking, and smoking tobacco, but when it comes to harmless, beneficial Psychedelic drugs, we are willing to lock someone up for consuming a mushroom that grows naturally in the wild. Think about that for a second. Something that grows on the planet is ILLEGAL. It doesn't make any sense. If we aren't free to experiment with our consciousness and expand it, than what freedom do we really have? One of the very foundations of being human is that we are conscious, and the only one that we are allowed to have, is the one that is created by an electronic media. We aren't glorifying free thinkers, and those who challenge the current social order. We lock them up and demonize them.What does this show about western society (which dictates most of which that goes on in the world)?? We are society that is reclusive and resistant to change. We don't even want to think about alternatives because, we are satisfied with being greedy and selfish. This all come back to Primitive "Survival of the Fittest" psychology. And until people realize that it is going to take some serious sacrifice on our parts (meaning those who are blessed to be in more fortunate situations), we can not move step into the next phase of human psychological evolution. Until we dissolve are petty boundaries that keep us from loving each other, we will continue to kill each other to satisfy our egotistical desires.
Well if you search up on Google, I am sure that you could find much better knowledge than I could ever offer you, but I guess another important thing to note would be, tensions about Slavery (and the size of the government), could largely be accredited to the western land acquisitions we received through expansion. Basically after we had acquired all those states, the issue in Congress, was wether these states should be able to have legalized slavery. To my knowledge, Congress said no, and basically the Southern and newly acquired states were pissed off because the government (that was increasing in size) said the newly acquired states could not have slaves. I don't know if that really helps you, but it is some general knowledge that could aid you in your search, or give you some ideas.
Well, Adam Smith isn't advocating smaller government. He is looking at both sides neutrally, as far as I see it.I can agree with you, that often we lose freedom trying to gain peace, but either way aren't we a slave to something? I call myself a Communist, but really I am more politically an idealistically agnostic more than anything. What is he difference between being a slave to large government, or being a slave to society? Republicans, Democrats (I call them Republicrats), Liberals, Conservatives (I call them Conserberals), they are all one if the same man. Because wether we want to see it or note the CEOs of the corporations that I hate, are in bed with the government officials that you hate. Me personally, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I believe that the pros of bigger government (of course with exception to totalitarianism) outweigh the Cons. That is just me though. I really enjoyed having this debate with you, as it was my first real one on this site,and I look forward dot many more.
Why should it be Capitalistic and Consumeristic? You don't need to buy mushrooms, just go out and pick them. As far as DMT is concerned, the plants where it can be extracted, can be purchased on the web from sites that specialize and dedicate their stock to entheogenic substances. Its the same difference between choosing to buy at wal-mart, or a mom-and-pop store. Yes the United States is a mixed, economy, but it would be foolish to not say that the paradigm the U.S adheres to one of Capitalism and Consumerism. Don't believe me? Try running for a political position, say you are in favor of socialism, and you are committing political suicide. America is associated with championing the free market.
And yes I certainly think the hippies are a reason, but that would really be seeing the smaller picture of things. You are certainly entitled to your opinion though! Hahaha and if Nixon would have tripped, I think he would have been thrust into hell. That guy had some issues for real..
The reason I put the McKenna quote, is because when you think about it, what is the most individual aspect of ourselves? Our consciousness! If we aren't free to even experiment with that, than what freedom do we really have?
Im not trying to debate with you, we are advocating the same things, just thought I would clarify :)
1) I will leave it at I misunderstood you
2) I am familiar with Adam Smith. Although I have not read Wealth of Nations to its full extent, I am informed enough to know that Smith was not the champion of Small government and Capitalism that people make him out to be
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."-Adam Smith
Read through wealth of nations some more and you will see that you could pick out quotations to support either side, but ultimately Adam Smith realized that without the role of government intervention in public affairs, society would be horrible.
Adam Smith is terribly misquoted and misunderstood, as reaffirmed in full detail by Noam Chomsky,and after pondering, I will take his word for it, as my intellectual ability is a drop in the bucket compared to his. And yes Anarchy is not restrained to non government, but lets be perfectly honest, that is what people associate anarchy with first and foremost.
3) How are christian morals apart of Christianity? That makes no sense. Christian+ Morality=Christianity. They are intrinsic to each other. If you believe in Islamic morals, then ultimately you are Muslim. Same goes for all religions.
4)Yes big government is founded because sometimes government is the only solution. at the very least bigger government can be a catalyst for change that would otherwise never take place. Im sure you are familiar with the worker conditions in the early 1900s. They were horrible. Workers were in constant danger, without any benefits from their employers, and they hardly got payed for it. Labor Unions started, and eventually the government got involved, and things like minimum wage came into the picture. How could this have been achieved without government intervention? This is what Adam Smith was talking about at the end of Wealth of Nations
Well up until the Civil War, Congress had been sweeping the issue of slavery under the rug for much too long. Tensions built with events such as Nat Turner's rebellion, and John Brown's radical abolitionist preaching. Eventually things just got out of hand, and it resulted in the Civil War. So, yes the Civil War was a necessary evil, because it HAD to happened sooner or later.
1) Ahh but now you are changing your argument. You said "It is because most people don't understand that there is no such thing as world peace." Now you are saying "I can name a multitude of people who believe in world peace." The two are very different. I believe in world peace. But I understand that right now there is no such thing as world peace. Probably just a simple miscommunication on our parts.
2)"They believe that the government can solve everything and that without it we go into anarchy" Im saying that there is nothing to "believe" here. You can "believe" what you want, no government is called anarchy. You make it sound like there is an alternative to a non government state. Perhaps another miscommunication? Once again your "meddle MUCH" statement is very broad, and subjective, and all I'm saying is that maybe you should be bit more specific and objective. Who defines what is "much" role that the government plays?
3) Thats a nice quote. You argue that it was founded on christian morals, yet i see nothing in that quote that refers to christian morality. And even though I have provided numerous sources as to why it was NOT founded on christianity (but you are correct that is a different debate) you choose to believe so. The constitution was founded on MORALS, not CHRISTIAN MORALS. If it is, please show me where the constitution states so. Morality doesn't even have to be religious. An Athiest doesn't have to be a christian to know that murder is wrong. And if Christian Morality isn't Christianity, than what is? It is foolish to try to serrate the two,because they are both one and the same.
4) So by your standards, someone with a handicap, who must rely on others completely is being morally incorrect? And Yes I would agree, that someone who is capable of working, and relies on others to work for them while they do nothing, is being morally incorrect. That being said, I really do not see how depending on the government to keep you safe is being morally incorrect. What else are you supposed to do? That is what taxes are for, we are depending on the government to use our tax dollars to compensate The Army and the Police. If terrorists invade America, is it your moral obligation to remain independent, without the assistance of the government,in this case The Army? No! I am very confused about your argument.
5) No I'm not trolling you, I am simply trying to debate on a website for debating.
Wow. Your argument has more plot holes than a Michael Bay movie, and the logical reasoning of a middle schooler who thinks he knows politics based on his parents beliefs. Very well let us begin
"It is because most people don't understand that there is no such thing as world peace."
I think most people understand that there is no such thing as world, peace because world peace has not yet been achieved, therefore it would be impossible to not understand it? I didn't know that you were an omnipotent all powerful being who knew the minds of "most people". Thank you for your enlightenment oh powerful one.
"They believe that the government can solve everything and that without it we go into anarchy....
to some extent that is true because one of the original purposes of government was to establish order....
However, the government was not intended to meddle much in public affairs so that the people were free."
Merriam-Webster defines Anarchy as An absence of government Its not that people believe that without government we go into anarchy, it is that without government it IS an anarchy, no ifs, ands, or buts, about it. Your statement about the role government was supposed to play is extremely broad, and really it depends on what you define as "public affairs". Im glad that you recognize that the government was founded to establish order, however I'm a little confused as to how establishing order wouldn't be considered meddling in public affairs? If public affairs under anarchism meant everyone was stealing from each other, and the government was created to prevent that kind of chaos, how is that not meddling in public affairs? And yes, while I'm sure that the government was not necessarily created to "meddle" in public affairs such as health care or whatnot, the constitution was document written in 1787, do you really expect that government wouldn't fluctuate to the needs of whatever the current time was? Slavery was completely legal in that time as well, and the time came where people realized that slavery needed to be abolished, and it was. My point being, unless the constitution explicitly declares "The government shall not intervene in X and Y" who are you to say what the government of that time intended to do or not? The Intention of the government as written in the constitution is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" Did they say how that should be carried out? Absolutely not. The founding fathers were intelligent enough to understand that times would change, and in Article 1 section 8, lay out the "Necessary and Proper" clause which gives power to Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper". This speaks for its self.
"But, the thing is this, the Constitution was grounded in Christian morals and without them the nation cannot stand."
Haha you sounds as ignorant as my indoctrinated private school peers. You speak of the Constitution, but no where in the constitution do I see any mention of the word "Holy Bible" Or "Jesus Christ". Sure there are talks of "God" but really just how broad is the term "God"? A very broad term. If Jesus Christ was mentioned, that would certainly give that argument some more credibility,but there is no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere. And if you have done your proper research, you would be aware that a large majority of the founding fathers were Deists (The belief in God, but he stays out of human affairs). Now I am not saying that all of the founding fathers were Deist, but it would be foolish and ignorant to claim that the constitution is a christian document, when christianity isn't even mentioned in it. Further proof of America not being a Christian nation can be found in the First Amendment of the United States, which I will trust you are familiar with, but in case not, it lays out the foundations for freedom of religion i.e the separation of church and state. More proof can be found in a little document called the Treaty of Tripoli. Written under the presidency of George Washington, and signed by John Adams during his presidency, it states "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Convinced yet?
"Regardless of whether you are Christians or not, you must still abide by good morals to allow this nation to succeed."
Im sorry, I wasn't aware that Christians were the only one with good morals.
"This has not happened. The nation fell apart as the nation's morals went through the window and now the government is hard pressed to make sure everyone is safe and okay"
Please clarify on the exact morals that have as you say "went through the window\". And is not the governments job to "establish Justice,[and] insure domestic Tranquility"? Come on now you are just being ridiculous.
"People depend on the government and believe that they can create a peace that will not come."
Once again, people depend on the government to do what it was designed to do first and foremost. If you can not recognize that, I honestly don't know what more I can say to you.
I think you make a great point on the difference between handing out money and providing welfare assistance.
The government should not end Welfare in the United States.
This is the evolution of government that many people detest, but I for one think it is a beautiful, and necessary role our government should play. There will always be the argument that welfare promotes laziness, but the way I see it, is it better to have welfare were some abuse the system, or no welfare at all? I will go with the first choice.
Coming from a broken family where my mom had to raise me on her own, we depended on government assistance (mostly in the form of food stamps), and mark my words, that lady busted her behind to provide a decent life for me, to ensure that I was clothed and fed. I hardly often got to see her. She usually worked long over night shifts, and when she got back in the morning, I was heading off to school, and when I got back, I was only around her for a couple of hours before she was off to work again.
It is extremely tempting and convenient to generalize welfare recipients as lazy, and un motivated, but I assure you that there are people who really genuinely do need help in the form of government assistance. I have lived that life, and I do not know what me and my mother would have done if we weren't able to receive food stamps. It is better to show some compassion, and be taken advantage of some of the time, then to show no compassion at all.
Should the government give out actual cash. NO
Should the government continue forms of welfare such as food stamps? YES
Where to get the money to fund this, is really really quite simple. One example I will give is to stop spending money on a PHONY war on drugs. There is money to fund these welfare programs, but we as a nation need to re evaluate our priorities, and really ask ourselves, if we really do want to help those in need.
Well smoking ANYTHING can't be good for your lungs. Vaporizing, and Edibles, are a much safer alternative to the traditional smoking, but edibles take time to prepare, and Vaporizers can be quite expensive, some even as much as 300 dollars, so i think smoking once or twice a day shouldn't do that much harm.
Your "argument" (if you can even call it that), reeks of ignorance. Do you even know what a hallucinogen does? Or better yet, what a hallucinogen even is? Good job trying to debate something you are obviously completely uneducated on, as you can not even give a concrete argument as to why the substances should remain illegal.
Your "argument" (if you can even call it that), reeks of ignorance. Do you even know what a hallucinogen does? Or better yet, what a hallucinogen even is? Good job trying to debate something you are obviously completely uneducated on, as you can not even give a concrete argument as to why the substances should remain illegal.
You are absolutely right! My first (and only) Mushroom trip (which in the traditional sense I guess you could call it a "bad" trip), has benefited me in many many ways! I feel more spiritual, I feel like my consciousness has expanded considerably, and I feel the need to gain more knowledge. The small but vital role Psychedelics has played in my life, has been absolutely for the better, and it is very sad that ignorant people will look down on Psychedelics as dangerous
I was just about to create this debate!
But yes, yes, and absolutely positively, without a doubt YES.
Psychedelics are physically HARMLESS. LSD is one of the least toxic substances known to man. DMT is a naturally recurring substance in the body. Mushrooms are PLANT for heavens sake..
Mentally and psychologically (while used responsibly of course), they have many benefits. LSD was first used to treat alcoholics and had a pretty high success rate. Ayahuasca is commonly used as soul cleansing brew, and is even used by the Santo Daime as a vital substance in their Christian practices.
Psychedelics are illegal because they are boundary dissolving substances, if everybody participated in the consummation of these substances, it would result in a paradigm shift that would not be compatible with that of the current paradigm of the United States, particularly that of Capitalism, and consumerism.
There are way more pros than cons. Psychedelics open up the mind, and are a catalyst for POSITIVE change. I speak from personal experience, and it is FOOLISH and counter productive for the human race to keep these conscious expanding substances illegal
"If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on."- Terence McKenna
I don't think people (at least rational people) view government like this. I am a Communist and I am completely aware of the flaws of government, and that it is easily susceptible to negative human influence. That being said, I also recognize that government can also be a catalyst for change which otherwise could not be accomplished, and allows the voice of the "little guy" so to speak, be heard. I think that most people in the world are mostly aware that Utopia is not possible in actual reality. But I will keep it simple for you:
Would you rather have America as the way it is, or an America without government?
Electrically powered cars are absolutely worth it. For two reasons:
1. Better for the planet
Yes a little bit of a no brainer, but very critical. Humans are on a first class ride to self destruction, and one of the reasons as to why, is the abuse and exploitation of the planet. As it is, humans are being extremely ignorant of the state of health of our planet (May I remind you the only planet in our vicinity of the Universe, and as far as we know, the only planet capable of sustaining human life). It is not only a good deed, it is mandatory we be aware of the harm that we are inflicting on Earth, and be mindful of what we can do to minimize and even completely stop the harm. By cutting down on emissions, we are helping revive the planet, saving the health of our bodies, and being responsible with the resources that our Mother Earth has provided us, which brings me to my next point.
2. It is only a matter of time before we run out of our natural fuel sources.
Yes it may be a long time away before that happens, but shouldn't we as humans feel obligated, to not leave this mess in the hands of our Children, and Grandchildren? It would be completely irresponsible and counter productive, to not try to perfect Electrically Powered Cars, because we are going to depend on them in the future (That is if we survive that long).
Well Peace can definitely be achieved. But only through one way. That is the shelving of ethic, and moral, and even at times religious dogma for the greater good of humanity. Many people will describe this as being tolerant, and point out that too much tolerance inevitably leads to the destruction of societies themselves. While I will agree, that there must be some form of limitations, it comes down to this: It isn't about being tolerant, it is about putting aside petty, and I do say PETTY grievances, so that we can live in more prosperous harmony. So Morals and ethics are one side of the coin.
The other would be human greed. Its like this. We actually have created giant war machines that SHOOT and KILL our human brothers and sisters, just so we can maintain our elite status in the world, and have access to the recourses that we want, and want NOW. Now, this debate isn't necessarily about politics, but I am trying to say that if we let greed dictate our lives, that would mean we are un aware, and un caring of the desires and needs of others, in which case peace is impossible.
So in conclusion, peace is possible, but all it takes is a little educating of the ignorant, a little sacrifice of our own egotistical desires, and a little Love, and we can begin paving the world towards a more peaceful planet.
Communism is absolutely, positively good. I don't understand where there isn't to like about Communism. Those who oppose Communism, are doing so because it is beneficial to them, and they are unwilling to relinquish the individual freedoms for the greater good of humanity. The reason Communism is so difficult to apply to today's world, is because it is convenient and easy for people, especially Americans, to turn a blind eye to the poor and needy, Because what would that mean? It would mean a radical change in the distribution of the worlds resources, and wealth, and frankly the rich and powerful Capitalist bourgeoisie doesn't want that. The only cases where Communism wouldn't be good to you, is if you are an elite, who is bent on keeping that power and status, or if you are just plain un willing to realize that if the world is truly to become a more prosperous place, it would take some intense sacrifice on your part. Communism is the most difficult task humanity would ever have to try to carryout, but it is definitely not impossible in today's world. Hell we can think of a solution to any problem if it benefits us. We went to the Moon for crying out loud. If we as Humans wanted Communism to work, it would work, and it would work efficiently.
