Poor Rush

[Mariner]

Further to some earlier points in this thread, the use of Cannabis as pain relief is something which is very helpful in many situations. Many sufferers of Multiple Schlerosis use it when other treatments fail for example:

http://www.mssociety.org.uk/docs/MS_Society_submission__cannabinoids__12803.pdf

If I remember correctly, Heroin (note, no 'e'!), was originally synthesised to be a less addictive form of Morphine. Unfortunately, it is actually more addictive as it doesn't have as many of the unpleasant side-effects!

I can't comment much on the Russ Limbaugh matter as I've heard of his name but nothing else.

One thing I have found, though, is that people who pontificate on the misbehaviour of others in public often tend to be caught misbehaving themselves! This is just human nature - there are few saints around.

I often think that I could do a better job than many politicians, but I'm sure that if I were in the public eye some of my past (and hopefully future ) misdemeanours would be dredged up, much to my embarrassment!

 

[epicstruggle]

See I have only one problem with most of the rush-bashing. and that he did not intend to get to the point where he used hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of pain killers. Its not like he woke up one day and said, hmm, lets make life more interesting and start using pain killers. He got addicted to it because he was trying to manage pain.

What he did is still wrong, but if memory serves me correctly JFK was also addicted to drugs to control back pains. Elizabeth Taylor, same boat. Both were addicted and did everything (legal or illegal) to get the drugs they needed. Ive never heard liberals attacking these two particular examples. Just wanted to point out the hypocrisy.

later,
epic

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If someone says that drug users and abusers are destroying society, and then encourages people to listen to them because they know what's right and have the conservative and right slant on America, that's misrepresenting themselves. Misrepresentation is the same thing as lying.

Natoma, learn to distiguish between knowing the difference between right and wrong, and doing right and wrong.

I don't blame anyone for downloading music. And I don't care if you admitted it was wrong. You did the worst thing. You knew it was wrong and you did it any way. That's worse than someone who doesn't know and does something.

ROTFLMAO!!



I was wondering what took so long for you to bring up this "argument." Look at the top post in page two of the latest RIAA thread:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8294&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

I said (my post in its entirety): "BTW, now I'm waiting for the "SWW" retort. "

It's taken you long enough, but you have finally done it. the "SWW" retort I referred to is the "So What's Worse" retort. (What's worse, knowing it's wrong and doing it, or not knowing it's wrong and doing it.)

This can and should be discussed in its own entire thread. In a nut shell, they are both bad, but one is not inherently worse than the other. It's a case-by-case situation.

I'm simply shocked and appalled that a christian could be guilty of such evilness.

Probably because you fail completely to understand Christian values. (Which isn't all too surprising, since many Christians don't really understand them either.)

In short: it shouldn't be a surprise at all that everyone, including Christians, sin. In fact, it's essentially expected.

Ok, your child is a parasite and your wife is a hairless ape. But don't take that personally. It has no meaning unless you put it into context.

That's about as poor in taste of anything you've ever said Natoma. Yet again, displaying a complete lack of comprehension for any point made about beastiality and homosexuality. You are either extremely stupid, or extremely rude.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Rush clearly knew he had a drug problem, and it is unfortunate that it took these allegations for him to admit to the problem. Now there are some reports that he may have ordered some of these prescriptions illegally and had them shipped to his home across state lines. This sounds like a felony, and I don't think any health issues can justify these activities.

Agreed. The only point that the "Rush Supporters" here are making, is that Rush has NOT

1) Asked for sympathy.
2) Made excuses
3) Blamed anyone but himself

for all of this. No one, including Rush, is trying to excuse Rush for his actions, or shift blame to anyone else. I, like you, hope that Rush recovers and beats his addiction. At the same time, I have no sympathy for him wrt whatever legal / criminal challenges he faces, and I certainly don't want any of my tax dollars going toward either his recovery, or his legal battles.

 

[MfA]

Natoma, learn to distiguish between knowing the difference between right and wrong, and doing right and wrong.

Indeed, and there we have the definition of hypocrisy. That is why epicstruggle's arguement is attacking a strawmen, people are mostly attacking him for being a hypocrit and not a junkie (I say people rather than "liberals" because I dont think it is just to reinforce the idea conservative/liberal dichotomy in society in every second sentence BTW ... to me it seems an unhealthy attitude, and not entirely accurate either).

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Indeed, and there we have the definition of hypocrisy.

I don't see Rush as a hypocrite. (At least, not yet...he can still turn out that way depending on future actions in this ordeal.)

In the same way, a Christian that has committed a sin, does not by definition make said Christian a hypocrite.

Had Rush blamed his affliction on others (not of his own downfall), that would surely make him a hypocrite.

If Rush portrays himself as a victim, that would surely make him a hypocrite.

 

[Sabastian]

I think the greatest disparity between conservatives and liberals on drug use is their attitude towards drug use in general. Liberals basically think that people will do it anyhow and want to create a permissive atmosphere. Where conservatives are not willing to give ethical consent to drug use in general. It is one thing to try hard not to do drugs and another to give into their use all together. At least, while sometimes hypocritical, conservatives do not condone the use of certain illicit drugs. At least they fucking try. In this case he became addicted initially through prescription and then sought ulterior ways to find it. I am not trying to be an apologist here, I do not condone what he did but at least he has the backbone to admit that he was responsible for his own actions rather then blaming his environment.

 

[Mariner]

In the same way, a Christian that has committed a sin, does not by definition make said Christian a hypocrite.

True. However, if a Christian was actively preaching against committing a particular sin whilst at the same time committing said sin, then this would obviously be hypocritical (Swaggart?).

If Limbaugh was illicitly obtaining and using controlled substances whilst decrying this type of behaviour then he definitely was being hypocritical.

 

[Natoma]

See I have only one problem with most of the rush-bashing. and that he did not intend to get to the point where he used hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of pain killers. Its not like he woke up one day and said, hmm, lets make life more interesting and start using pain killers. He got addicted to it because he was trying to manage pain.

No one starts off intending to get to the point where they're addicted to any drug epic. No matter what the drug is.

What he did is still wrong, but if memory serves me correctly JFK was also addicted to drugs to control back pains. Elizabeth Taylor, same boat. Both were addicted and did everything (legal or illegal) to get the drugs they needed. Ive never heard liberals attacking these two particular examples. Just wanted to point out the hypocrisy.

JFK and Liz Taylor didn't spend their adult lives attacking and bashing anything and everything non-coservative as evil and the pillar of the destruction of american society.

 

[Natoma]

If someone says that drug users and abusers are destroying society, and then encourages people to listen to them because they know what's right and have the conservative and right slant on America, that's misrepresenting themselves. Misrepresentation is the same thing as lying.

Natoma, learn to distiguish between knowing the difference between right and wrong, and doing right and wrong.

Again, Rush was railing against the very thing he was himself guilty of. And he never espoused any mercy or empathy for those addicted to any kind of drug. That quote I sent was the one being quoted over and over again in the media, but you honestly believe Rush never talked about drug use and abuse in this country after 1995?

I don't blame anyone for downloading music. And I don't care if you admitted it was wrong. You did the worst thing. You knew it was wrong and you did it any way. That's worse than someone who doesn't know and does something.

ROTFLMAO!!



I was wondering what took so long for you to bring up this "argument." Look at the top post in page two of the latest RIAA thread:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8294&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

I said (my post in its entirety): "BTW, now I'm waiting for the "SWW" retort. "

It's taken you long enough, but you have finally done it. the "SWW" retort I referred to is the "So What's Worse" retort. (What's worse, knowing it's wrong and doing it, or not knowing it's wrong and doing it.)

This can and should be discussed in its own entire thread. In a nut shell, they are both bad, but one is not inherently worse than the other. It's a case-by-case situation.

Joe, learn to distinguish a sarcastic talking point and one that's actually up for discussion before going off on your tangents.

I'm simply shocked and appalled that a christian could be guilty of such evilness.

Probably because you fail completely to understand Christian values. (Which isn't all too surprising, since many Christians don't really understand them either.)

In short: it shouldn't be a surprise at all that everyone, including Christians, sin. In fact, it's essentially expected.

Again, learn to distinguish a sarcastic talking point and one that's actually up for discussion before going off on your tangents. I would have thought the two icons and the over the top use of "evilness" would have clued you on to that fact, but I suppose not.

Ok, your child is a parasite and your wife is a hairless ape. But don't take that personally. It has no meaning unless you put it into context.

That's about as poor in taste of anything you've ever said Natoma. Yet again, displaying a complete lack of comprehension for any point made about beastiality and homosexuality. You are either extremely stupid, or extremely rude.

Oh come now Joe. It's not in context. Why are you taking offense? How can it be in poor taste if it's not in context? It's in no more poor taste than you saying my relationship with my bf of 3 years is on certain levels comparable to beastiality.

Well, on certain levels, your child is a parasite and your wife is a hairless ape. So come now Joe, don't take it personally. It's true on certain levels. You're showing a complete lack of comprehension for any point made about the parasitic nature of your child and the species status of your wife. You are either extremely stupid, or extremely rude.

 

[Natoma]

I think the greatest disparity between conservatives and liberals on drug use is their attitude towards drug use in general. Liberals basically think that people will do it anyhow and want to create a permissive atmosphere. Where conservatives are not willing to give ethical consent to drug use in general. It is one thing to try hard not to do drugs and another to give into their use all together. At least, while sometimes hypocritical, conservatives do not condone the use of certain illicit drugs. At least they fucking try. In this case he became addicted initially through prescription and then sought ulterior ways to find it. I am not trying to be an apologist here, I do not condone what he did but at least he has the backbone to admit that he was responsible for his own actions rather then blaming his environment.

There is no difference wrt attitudes about drug use and abuse between liberals and conservatives. Most everyone feels that illegal drugs should not be used because they can be dangerous to one's physical and mental health and indeed one's life. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that if conservatives had their way, there would be no outreach programs sponsored by the state and local and federal governments in order to help people get over their addictions.

This "go it alone" attitude that conservatives have completely belies the very dependent structure of our society that we have built for ourselves, i.e. that we do our best to take care of one another. That is the difference as I see it. It is neither a moral or immoral stance wrt the use of illegal drugs, but what to do after someone has become addicted that I see as the major difference.

If you've ever been to an outreach program Sabastian, you would realize that in every one of them, liberals and conservatives alike, the first step to recovery from a drug problem is acknowledging that the problem is one you created yourself and that you alone in terms of willpower and dedication can overcome it. What Rush did is admirable, but not special or intrinsic to conservatives alone. Keep that in mind.

[EDIT]
One of my aunts spent a few years while I was growing up addicted to crack. And the point where she finally turned her life around was when she finally said to herself that she had to take responsibility for her life and get herself up on her feet.

We as her family had tried to help her out as best as we could and sometimes it worked, other times it didn't. But when she was finally ready, we were still there for her. But it still took her saying "I need to get myself out of this" before she finally did.

She detoxed about 6-8 years ago and graduated from college two years ago and hasn't touched drugs since beginning her detox.

And she's one of the most liberal people around. So again, keep in mind what you say without actually knowing the reality of the situations you speak about.
[/EDIT]

 

[Sabastian]

If you've ever been to an outreach program Sabastian, you would realize that in every one of them, liberals and conservatives alike, the first step to recovery from a drug problem is acknowledging that the problem is one you created yourself and that you alone in terms of willpower and dedication can overcome it. What Rush did is admirable, but not special or intrinsic to conservatives alone. Keep that in mind.

Well then the road to recovery is intrinsically conservative then. Rather then blame their environment and victimize themselves they must have individual accountability for their own choices and actions... *cough* moral agency.

 

[Natoma]

If you've ever been to an outreach program Sabastian, you would realize that in every one of them, liberals and conservatives alike, the first step to recovery from a drug problem is acknowledging that the problem is one you created yourself and that you alone in terms of willpower and dedication can overcome it. What Rush did is admirable, but not special or intrinsic to conservatives alone. Keep that in mind.

Well then the road to recovery is intrinsically conservative then. Rather then blame their environment and victimize themselves they must have individual accountability for their own choices and actions... *cough* moral agency.

You've completely missed the point of what I just posted Sabastian.

 

[MfA]

It might be a road to recovery, but it isnt one which is well traveled. Rush needed to have a police investigation and national attention to finally force him to kick the habit.

If you have much less to loose by your addiction this kind of outward pressure is totally lacking though ... Rush has it easy.

 

[Sabastian]

Well then the road to recovery is intrinsically conservative then. Rather then blame their environment and victimize themselves they must have individual accountability for their own choices and actions... *cough* moral agency.

You've completely missed the point of what I just posted Sabastian.

No I don't think so. To admit choice in human affairs creates a situation where by individuals may make a good choice or a bad one. However left wing philosophies have a strong tendency to remove responsibility for individual actions based on socialization theories. To admit responsibility for ones choice is individualistic. In this case Russ admits that he chose poorly not only was it illegal but also a habit forming drug. The suggestion that taking illicit harmful drugs is neither right nor wrong is about the most stupid suggestion. What are the consequences of taking an extremely addictive drug? Addiction... how is addiction neither good nor bad?

 

[Natoma]

No I don't think so. To admit choice in human affairs creates a situation where by individuals may make a good choice or a bad one. However left wing philosophies have a strong tendency to remove responsibility for individual actions based on socialization theories. To admit responsibility for ones choice is individualistic. In this case Russ admits that he chose poorly not only was it illegal but also a habit forming drug. The suggestion that taking illicit harmful drugs is neither right nor wrong is about the most stupid suggestion. What are the consequences of taking an extremely addictive drug? Addiction... how is addiction neither good nor bad?

Yes, you are missing what has been said.

First, I never said nor have heard anyone say that taking illicit harmful drugs is neither right nor wrong, nor have I heard anyone say that addiction is neither good nor bad.

Most everyone feels that illegal drugs should not be used because they can be dangerous to one's physical and mental health and indeed one's life.

The part where I said:

It is neither a moral or immoral stance wrt the use of illegal drugs, but what to do after someone has become addicted that I see as the major difference.

is saying that the difference between liberals and conservatives is not in whether taking illegal drugs is moral or immoral. The difference imo is what to do after someone has become addicted.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that if conservatives had their way, there would be no outreach programs sponsored by the state and local and federal governments in order to help people get over their addictions.

This "go it alone" attitude that conservatives have completely belies the very dependent structure of our society that we have built for ourselves, i.e. that we do our best to take care of one another. That is the difference as I see it.

You're misreading.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Natoma,

Yea, I love it when conservatives fall flat on their faces. It shows them for the hypocritical bastards they generally are.

I know you don't mean everyone, and I am not trying to take the above out of context. I would just like to bring up a point. Stating what is wrong, knowing what is wrong, is different than always doing what is right. I have heard of Christians as being called hypocritical before because they do bad things too. Yes, Christians might believe this or that is wrong, they might even do this or that, but if they are true Christians, they try NOT to do those things.

If I were to voice my opinion that something someone does is wrong, I am not judging them, I am only judging the action. It seams that many people take it personally and then lash out.

Just a few thoughts,
Dr. Ffreeze

 

[MfA]

I dont know if it is entirely truethfull to say he got hooked on drugs because of a prescription rather than abuse BTW. The doctors seem to say the drug is only addictive if you start abusing it by taking it in a non-prescribed manner (ie. crushing it).

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Again, Rush was railing against the very thing he was himself guilty of. And he never espoused any mercy or empathy for those addicted to any kind of drug.

So, is Rush asking anyone for empathy or mercy here? I don't see it. That's my point.

Joe, learn to distinguish a sarcastic talking point and one that's actually up for discussion before going off on your tangents.

Oh, so then to clarify, you don't think that knowing what's wrong, and doing it anyway is worse than not knowing the difference.

I'm not the one who went on that tanget, Natoma...you did. As I said, if you want to discuss that particular tangent, by all means start a new thread on it.

Again, learn to distinguish a sarcastic talking point and one that's actually up for discussion before going off on your tangents.

Perhaps you should learn to actually say something with sarcasm, or just don't say it at all?

I would have thought the two icons and the over the top use of "evilness" would have clued you on to that fact, but I suppose not.

For sarcasm to be effective, Natoma, it should actually be done in such a way that it illustrates your point of view.

Oh come now Joe. It's not in context. Why are you taking offense?

Um, precisely because it's not in context.

I never bring up beastiality and homosexuality comparisons unless it IS given in a specific context. Hello?

How can it be in poor taste if it's not in context?

Again, it's in poor taste exactly because there is no context. I would have thought this would be obvious.

It's in no more poor taste than you saying my relationship with my bf of 3 years is on certain levels comparable to beastiality.

Nope. Because when I make such comparisons, I do it in a specific contexts. You omit such context whenever you bring ujp the subject.

Well, on certain levels, your child is a parasite and your wife is a hairless ape.

Sigh. Again, there is no context given.

So come now Joe, don't take it personally. It's true on certain levels.

Yes it is. Of couse, you don't state what those levels are, and how they relate to any discussion at hand. Hence, the complete lack of relevancy, and the obviousness of yet another pathetic attempt by you to make an ill-fated point.

Grow up.

 

[Sabastian]

How or why am I responsible for the addiction that some heroin addict has? I think rather then trying to take morality out of drug use what society ought to be doing is strongly disapproving of drug use thus rather then damage control we take a preventative (or a Moralistic one if you like.) approach. I refuse to make victims of people whom become addicted to illegal drugs, particularly when they know full well what the end result is.