Xenu and Yakub

[Quadibloc]

I just recently learned that *two* religions have science-fiction villains in
them.

However, in Scientology, the bad guys are about taking souls which originated at
the beginning of the Universe - thetans - and fooling them into incarnating into
flesh bodies, where they can be burdened with neuroses (engrams).

Whereas, in the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, souls originate as new human
beings come into fleshly existence, and thus are limited by the characteristics of
the flesh from which they arise. Thus, the scientist Yakub, thousands of years
ago, could start a fiendish and cruel program of selective breeding to create that
un-natural abomination of science, the white man.

Thus, the theology of these two beliefs seems to be fundamentally incompatible,
and thus there is no chance of Xenu and Yakub having an adventure together as a
pair of science-fiction villains.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that *two* religions have science-fiction villains in
them.
However, in Scientology, the bad guys are about taking souls which originated at
the beginning of the Universe - thetans - and fooling them into incarnating into
flesh bodies, where they can be burdened with neuroses (engrams).
Whereas, in the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, souls originate as new human
beings come into fleshly existence, and thus are limited by the characteristics of
the flesh from which they arise. Thus, the scientist Yakub, thousands of years
ago, could start a fiendish and cruel program of selective breeding to create that
un-natural abomination of science, the white man.
Thus, the theology of these two beliefs seems to be fundamentally incompatible,
and thus there is no chance of Xenu and Yakub having an adventure together as a
pair of science-fiction villains.

Both religions were made up in the previous century, so why not just
make up a new one that fits the story and cherry-picks both?

[Kevrob]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that *two* religions have science-fiction villains in
them.
However, in Scientology, the bad guys are about taking souls which originated at
the beginning of the Universe - thetans - and fooling them into incarnating into
flesh bodies, where they can be burdened with neuroses (engrams).
Whereas, in the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, souls originate as new human
beings come into fleshly existence, and thus are limited by the characteristics of
the flesh from which they arise. Thus, the scientist Yakub, thousands of years
ago, could start a fiendish and cruel program of selective breeding to create that
un-natural abomination of science, the white man.
Thus, the theology of these two beliefs seems to be fundamentally incompatible,
and thus there is no chance of Xenu and Yakub having an adventure together as a
pair of science-fiction villains.

Both religions were made up in the previous century, so why not just
make up a new one that fits the story and cherry-picks both?

I've long joked with a buddy of mine, an African-American, who is
a veteran radio DJ and rapper, if only of local renown, that if
I'd ever wanted to go the Marshall Mathers route, I'd have stiled
myself "MC Yakub, the Blue Eyed Devil."

I would be more of a "blue-eyed soul" cat than a rapper, anyway.
I'd be aiming for Van Morrison, afraid that Michael Bolton would
be what the listeners heard. :)

Kevin R

[-dsr-]

Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that *two* religions have science-fiction villains in
them.
However, in Scientology, the bad guys are about taking souls which originated at
the beginning of the Universe - thetans - and fooling them into incarnating into
flesh bodies, where they can be burdened with neuroses (engrams).
Whereas, in the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, souls originate as new human
beings come into fleshly existence, and thus are limited by the characteristics of
the flesh from which they arise. Thus, the scientist Yakub, thousands of years
ago, could start a fiendish and cruel program of selective breeding to create that
un-natural abomination of science, the white man.
Thus, the theology of these two beliefs seems to be fundamentally incompatible,
and thus there is no chance of Xenu and Yakub having an adventure together as a
pair of science-fiction villains.

Seems clear to me: Yakub selected particular thetans for embedding in his
pale primates. All theology is compatible if you ignore the parts that
bother you.

-dsr-

[J. Clarke]

Post by -dsr-

Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that *two* religions have science-fiction villains in
them.
However, in Scientology, the bad guys are about taking souls which originated at
the beginning of the Universe - thetans - and fooling them into incarnating into
flesh bodies, where they can be burdened with neuroses (engrams).
Whereas, in the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, souls originate as new human
beings come into fleshly existence, and thus are limited by the characteristics of
the flesh from which they arise. Thus, the scientist Yakub, thousands of years
ago, could start a fiendish and cruel program of selective breeding to create that
un-natural abomination of science, the white man.
Thus, the theology of these two beliefs seems to be fundamentally incompatible,
and thus there is no chance of Xenu and Yakub having an adventure together as a
pair of science-fiction villains.

Seems clear to me: Yakub selected particular thetans for embedding in his
pale primates. All theology is compatible if you ignore the parts that
bother you.

The Nation of Islam is, I think, very fortunate that the Islamic
nations haven't been paying any attention to them.

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke
The Nation of Islam is, I think, very fortunate that the Islamic
nations haven't been paying any attention to them.

I hesitate to think what al-Qaeda might have done to the Shriners if it had heard
of them...

John Savard

[Peter Trei]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
The Nation of Islam is, I think, very fortunate that the Islamic
nations haven't been paying any attention to them.

I hesitate to think what al-Qaeda might have done to the Shriners if it had heard
of them...

I don't know about AQ, but I've seen them discussed on some English language
Muslim boards. Usually its quite measured, with the more informed tamping
down the excitement of those who have just discovered the group. I have no
idea what happens on Arabic language boards.

The Shriners are undoubtedly problematic, and about as pure a case of cultural
appropriation as you could ask for. They are also harmless, and mainly
concerned with keeping the their free hospitals for children open.

pt

[Magewolf]

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
The Nation of Islam is, I think, very fortunate that the Islamic
nations haven't been paying any attention to them.

I hesitate to think what al-Qaeda might have done to the Shriners if it had heard
of them...

I don't know about AQ, but I've seen them discussed on some English language
Muslim boards. Usually its quite measured, with the more informed tamping
down the excitement of those who have just discovered the group. I have no
idea what happens on Arabic language boards.
The Shriners are undoubtedly problematic, and about as pure a case of cultural
appropriation as you could ask for. They are also harmless, and mainly
concerned with keeping the their free hospitals for children open.
pt

Since cultural appropriation is a wholly made up construct(no one owns a
culture, especially as is usually the case in the US when you a tiny
fraction of said culture and lots of people not actually from that
culture trying to control it) designed as a means of controlling other
people's actual intellectual property I never worry if it makes anything
"problematic".

[Peter Trei]

Post by Magewolf

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
The Nation of Islam is, I think, very fortunate that the Islamic
nations haven't been paying any attention to them.

I hesitate to think what al-Qaeda might have done to the Shriners if it had heard
of them...

I don't know about AQ, but I've seen them discussed on some English language
Muslim boards. Usually its quite measured, with the more informed tamping
down the excitement of those who have just discovered the group. I have no
idea what happens on Arabic language boards.
The Shriners are undoubtedly problematic, and about as pure a case of cultural
appropriation as you could ask for. They are also harmless, and mainly
concerned with keeping the their free hospitals for children open.

Since cultural appropriation is a wholly made up construct(no one owns a
culture, especially as is usually the case in the US when you a tiny
fraction of said culture and lots of people not actually from that
culture trying to control it) designed as a means of controlling other
people's actual intellectual property I never worry if it makes anything
"problematic".

Fine, don't worry about it, and I won't worry about you.

Regardless, AAONMS grabbed a bunch of Orientalist Arab/Muslim themes back
in the late 1800s, and built a fun fraternal order around them. It was
done in good spirits, and with no intention to offend. Roll forward 140 years,
and the West can be reached, and harmed by people who don't take it in that
spirit, but see a non-Muslim quasi secret order having drunken fun while
wearing fezzes embroidered with 'ISLAM', and 'MECCA'.

I can sort of understand their upset, without condoning any potential acts
of violence (which haven't really been a thing, so far. Muslims have been
pretty chill about it overall).

pt

[Ahasuerus]

Post by Magewolf

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
The Nation of Islam is, I think, very fortunate that the Islamic
nations haven't been paying any attention to them.

I hesitate to think what al-Qaeda might have done to the Shriners
if it had heard of them...

I don't know about AQ, but I've seen them discussed on some English language
Muslim boards. Usually its quite measured, with the more informed tamping
down the excitement of those who have just discovered the group. I have no
idea what happens on Arabic language boards.
The Shriners are undoubtedly problematic, and about as pure a case
of cultural appropriation as you could ask for. They are also
harmless, and mainly concerned with keeping the their free hospitals
for children open.

Since cultural appropriation is a wholly made up construct(no one
owns a culture, especially as is usually the case in the US when
you a tiny fraction of said culture and lots of people not actually
from that culture trying to control it) designed as a means of
controlling other people's actual intellectual property I never
worry if it makes anything "problematic".

Would you then say that this use of the term "problematic" is
problematic?

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Magewolf

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
The Nation of Islam is, I think, very fortunate that the Islamic
nations haven't been paying any attention to them.

I hesitate to think what al-Qaeda might have done to the Shriners if it had heard
of them...

I don't know about AQ, but I've seen them discussed on some English language
Muslim boards. Usually its quite measured, with the more informed tamping
down the excitement of those who have just discovered the group. I have no
idea what happens on Arabic language boards.
The Shriners are undoubtedly problematic, and about as pure a case of cultural
appropriation as you could ask for. They are also harmless, and mainly
concerned with keeping the their free hospitals for children open.
pt

Since cultural appropriation is a wholly made up construct(no one owns a
culture, especially as is usually the case in the US when you a tiny
fraction of said culture and lots of people not actually from that
culture trying to control it) designed as a means of controlling other
people's actual intellectual property I never worry if it makes anything
"problematic".

It's like black-face make-up, y'know? Unless I overlooked
a detail and they actually /have/ black-face make-up.

[Peter Trei]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Magewolf

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
The Nation of Islam is, I think, very fortunate that the Islamic
nations haven't been paying any attention to them.

I hesitate to think what al-Qaeda might have done to the Shriners if it had heard
of them...

I don't know about AQ, but I've seen them discussed on some English language
Muslim boards. Usually its quite measured, with the more informed tamping
down the excitement of those who have just discovered the group. I have no
idea what happens on Arabic language boards.
The Shriners are undoubtedly problematic, and about as pure a case of cultural
appropriation as you could ask for. They are also harmless, and mainly
concerned with keeping the their free hospitals for children open.
pt

Since cultural appropriation is a wholly made up construct(no one owns a
culture, especially as is usually the case in the US when you a tiny
fraction of said culture and lots of people not actually from that
culture trying to control it) designed as a means of controlling other
people's actual intellectual property I never worry if it makes anything
"problematic".

It's like black-face make-up, y'know? Unless I overlooked
a detail and they actually /have/ black-face make-up.

I'm not aware of blackface as such, but some do wear makeup:
https://anahshriners.org/shriner-circus

pt

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by Magewolf
Since cultural appropriation is a wholly made up construct(no one owns a
culture, especially as is usually the case in the US when you a tiny
fraction of said culture and lots of people not actually from that
culture trying to control it) designed as a means of controlling other
people's actual intellectual property I never worry if it makes anything
"problematic".

While there are abuses that should be legally actionable (Big
Name Department Store copying an Inuit shaman's artwork for a
sweater) and people being racist jackasses who should be
condemned, all too often, the "cultural appropriation" thing
comes down to a demand for segregationism of art and thought.

[Peter Trei]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Magewolf
Since cultural appropriation is a wholly made up construct(no one owns a
culture, especially as is usually the case in the US when you a tiny
fraction of said culture and lots of people not actually from that
culture trying to control it) designed as a means of controlling other
people's actual intellectual property I never worry if it makes anything
"problematic".

While there are abuses that should be legally actionable (Big
Name Department Store copying an Inuit shaman's artwork for a
sweater) and people being racist jackasses who should be
condemned, all too often, the "cultural appropriation" thing
comes down to a demand for segregationism of art and thought.

Agreed. However, when someone who's lived their entire lives steeped in a
given culture sees some sacred element of it (even unknowingly) being used in
a disrespectful way by someone with no appreciation of it except as an artistic
motif, the hurt felt is real.

Being somewhat sensitive to the feelings of others is not a weakness; in
the real world, a balance has to be struck.

pt

[James Nicoll]

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Magewolf
Since cultural appropriation is a wholly made up construct(no one owns a
culture, especially as is usually the case in the US when you a tiny
fraction of said culture and lots of people not actually from that
culture trying to control it) designed as a means of controlling other
people's actual intellectual property I never worry if it makes anything
"problematic".

While there are abuses that should be legally actionable (Big
Name Department Store copying an Inuit shaman's artwork for a
sweater) and people being racist jackasses who should be
condemned, all too often, the "cultural appropriation" thing
comes down to a demand for segregationism of art and thought.

Agreed. However, when someone who's lived their entire lives steeped in a
given culture sees some sacred element of it (even unknowingly) being used in
a disrespectful way by someone with no appreciation of it except as an artistic
motif, the hurt felt is real.
Being somewhat sensitive to the feelings of others is not a weakness; in
the real world, a balance has to be struck.
pt

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Magewolf
Since cultural appropriation is a wholly made up construct(no one owns a
culture, especially as is usually the case in the US when you a tiny
fraction of said culture and lots of people not actually from that
culture trying to control it) designed as a means of controlling other
people's actual intellectual property I never worry if it makes anything
"problematic".

While there are abuses that should be legally actionable (Big
Name Department Store copying an Inuit shaman's artwork for a
sweater) and people being racist jackasses who should be
condemned, all too often, the "cultural appropriation" thing
comes down to a demand for segregationism of art and thought.

Agreed. However, when someone who's lived their entire lives steeped in a
given culture sees some sacred element of it (even unknowingly) being used in
a disrespectful way by someone with no appreciation of it except as an artistic
motif, the hurt felt is real.
Being somewhat sensitive to the feelings of others is not a weakness; in
the real world, a balance has to be struck.
pt

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

I thought you'd say that.

[Ahasuerus]

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Magewolf
Since cultural appropriation is a wholly made up construct(no one owns a
culture, especially as is usually the case in the US when you a tiny
fraction of said culture and lots of people not actually from that
culture trying to control it) designed as a means of controlling other
people's actual intellectual property I never worry if it makes anything
"problematic".

While there are abuses that should be legally actionable (Big
Name Department Store copying an Inuit shaman's artwork for a
sweater) and people being racist jackasses who should be
condemned, all too often, the "cultural appropriation" thing
comes down to a demand for segregationism of art and thought.

Agreed. However, when someone who's lived their entire lives steeped
in a given culture sees some sacred element of it (even unknowingly)
being used in a disrespectful way by someone with no appreciation of
it except as an artistic motif, the hurt felt is real.
Being somewhat sensitive to the feelings of others is not a weakness;
in the real world, a balance has to be struck.

ObSF: Aliens who hide there existence from humans because humans would
be totally crushed if they discovered how primitive and insignificant
they are in the grand scheme of things. This solution to the Fermi
Paradox was brought to you by the anthropology department of
Miskatonic University.

[Peter Trei]

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Magewolf
Since cultural appropriation is a wholly made up construct(no one owns a
culture, especially as is usually the case in the US when you a tiny
fraction of said culture and lots of people not actually from that
culture trying to control it) designed as a means of controlling other
people's actual intellectual property I never worry if it makes anything
"problematic".

While there are abuses that should be legally actionable (Big
Name Department Store copying an Inuit shaman's artwork for a
sweater) and people being racist jackasses who should be
condemned, all too often, the "cultural appropriation" thing
comes down to a demand for segregationism of art and thought.

Agreed. However, when someone who's lived their entire lives steeped
in a given culture sees some sacred element of it (even unknowingly)
being used in a disrespectful way by someone with no appreciation of
it except as an artistic motif, the hurt felt is real.
Being somewhat sensitive to the feelings of others is not a weakness;
in the real world, a balance has to be struck.

ObSF: Aliens who hide there existence from humans because humans would
be totally crushed if they discovered how primitive and insignificant
they are in the grand scheme of things. This solution to the Fermi
Paradox was brought to you by the anthropology department of
Miskatonic University.

You seem to be implying that the appropriation is always from a less
'developed' group to a a more 'developed' one.

What actually happens, in real life, is the more powerful group forces its
culture onto the less powerful one, while taking what they like out of the
subjugated culture.

'YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. YOUR UNIQUENESS WILL BE ADDED TO OUR COLLECTIVE.'

pt

[Ahasuerus]

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Magewolf
Since cultural appropriation is a wholly made up construct(no one owns a
culture, especially as is usually the case in the US when you a tiny
fraction of said culture and lots of people not actually from that
culture trying to control it) designed as a means of controlling other
people's actual intellectual property I never worry if it makes anything
"problematic".

While there are abuses that should be legally actionable (Big
Name Department Store copying an Inuit shaman's artwork for a
sweater) and people being racist jackasses who should be
condemned, all too often, the "cultural appropriation" thing
comes down to a demand for segregationism of art and thought.

Agreed. However, when someone who's lived their entire lives steeped
in a given culture sees some sacred element of it (even unknowingly)
being used in a disrespectful way by someone with no appreciation of
it except as an artistic motif, the hurt felt is real.
Being somewhat sensitive to the feelings of others is not a weakness;
in the real world, a balance has to be struck.

ObSF: Aliens who hide there existence from humans because humans would
be totally crushed if they discovered how primitive and insignificant
they are in the grand scheme of things. This solution to the Fermi
Paradox was brought to you by the anthropology department of
Miskatonic University.

You seem to be implying that the appropriation is always from a less
'developed' group to a a more 'developed' one.
What actually happens, in real life, is the more powerful group
forces its culture onto the less powerful one, while taking what they
like out of the subjugated culture.
'YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. YOUR UNIQUENESS WILL BE ADDED TO OUR
COLLECTIVE.'

There are all kinds of patters. For example, consider Russian Poland
and the Pale of Settlement in the 1880s-1910s. Their Polish and Jewish
population had been subjugated by the Russian Empire. However, attempts
to spread Russian culture in Poland largely failed. If anything, the
area served as a conduit which brought Marxism from Germany to Russia.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Magewolf
Since cultural appropriation is a wholly made up construct(no one owns a
culture, especially as is usually the case in the US when you a tiny
fraction of said culture and lots of people not actually from that
culture trying to control it) designed as a means of controlling other
people's actual intellectual property I never worry if it makes anything
"problematic".

While there are abuses that should be legally actionable (Big
Name Department Store copying an Inuit shaman's artwork for a
sweater) and people being racist jackasses who should be
condemned, all too often, the "cultural appropriation" thing
comes down to a demand for segregationism of art and thought.

Agreed. However, when someone who's lived their entire lives steeped
in a given culture sees some sacred element of it (even unknowingly)
being used in a disrespectful way by someone with no appreciation of
it except as an artistic motif, the hurt felt is real.
Being somewhat sensitive to the feelings of others is not a weakness;
in the real world, a balance has to be struck.

ObSF: Aliens who hide there existence from humans because humans would
be totally crushed if they discovered how primitive and insignificant
they are in the grand scheme of things. This solution to the Fermi
Paradox was brought to you by the anthropology department of
Miskatonic University.

"Miskatonic U. Dedicated to investigating supernatural apocalypses
since <redacted>."

[Ahasuerus]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Magewolf
Since cultural appropriation is a wholly made up construct(no one owns a
culture, especially as is usually the case in the US when you a tiny
fraction of said culture and lots of people not actually from that
culture trying to control it) designed as a means of controlling other
people's actual intellectual property I never worry if it makes anything
"problematic".

While there are abuses that should be legally actionable (Big
Name Department Store copying an Inuit shaman's artwork for a
sweater) and people being racist jackasses who should be
condemned, all too often, the "cultural appropriation" thing
comes down to a demand for segregationism of art and thought.

Agreed. However, when someone who's lived their entire lives steeped
in a given culture sees some sacred element of it (even unknowingly)
being used in a disrespectful way by someone with no appreciation of
it except as an artistic motif, the hurt felt is real.
Being somewhat sensitive to the feelings of others is not a weakness;
in the real world, a balance has to be struck.

ObSF: Aliens who hide there existence from humans because humans would
be totally crushed if they discovered how primitive and insignificant
they are in the grand scheme of things. This solution to the Fermi
Paradox was brought to you by the anthropology department of
Miskatonic University.

"Miskatonic U. Dedicated to investigating supernatural apocalypses
since <redacted>."

Our competitors will tell you that our attrition rate is one of the
highest in the field. Although true, it's worth pointing out that our
benefits package is by far the best you can find. And out life
insurance coverage is (all things considered) very affordable!

[[e-mail]]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Magewolf
Since cultural appropriation is a wholly made up construct(no one owns a
culture, especially as is usually the case in the US when you a tiny
fraction of said culture and lots of people not actually from that
culture trying to control it) designed as a means of controlling other
people's actual intellectual property I never worry if it makes anything
"problematic".

While there are abuses that should be legally actionable (Big
Name Department Store copying an Inuit shaman's artwork for a
sweater) and people being racist jackasses who should be
condemned, all too often, the "cultural appropriation" thing
comes down to a demand for segregationism of art and thought.

Agreed. However, when someone who's lived their entire lives steeped
in a given culture sees some sacred element of it (even unknowingly)
being used in a disrespectful way by someone with no appreciation of
it except as an artistic motif, the hurt felt is real.
Being somewhat sensitive to the feelings of others is not a weakness;
in the real world, a balance has to be struck.

ObSF: Aliens who hide there existence from humans because humans would
be totally crushed if they discovered how primitive and insignificant
they are in the grand scheme of things. This solution to the Fermi
Paradox was brought to you by the anthropology department of
Miskatonic University.

"Miskatonic U. Dedicated to investigating supernatural apocalypses
since <redacted>."
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

This perhaps the single most appropriate appearance of that .sig file.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by Ahasuerus
ObSF: Aliens who hide there existence from humans because humans would
be totally crushed if they discovered how primitive and insignificant
they are in the grand scheme of things. This solution to the Fermi
Paradox was brought to you by the anthropology department of
Miskatonic University.

Hm... The ... things ... that the Miskatonic University Anthropology
deparment investigates are more along the lines of "Discovering
their place in the grand scheme of things would crush the pathetic
little vermin?" (ponders for a second) "Yes, I suppose it will.
And your point is...?"

[Ahasuerus]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Ahasuerus
ObSF: Aliens who hide there existence from humans because humans would
be totally crushed if they discovered how primitive and insignificant
they are in the grand scheme of things. This solution to the Fermi
Paradox was brought to you by the anthropology department of
Miskatonic University.

Hm... The ... things ... that the Miskatonic University Anthropology
deparment investigates are more along the lines of "Discovering
their place in the grand scheme of things would crush the pathetic
little vermin?" (ponders for a second) "Yes, I suppose it will.
And your point is...?"

Sigh... Another victim of our competitors' propaganda machine!

Do you really think that we would hesitate to tell the world the
truth if we believed that it would benefit from it? Or that our alien
um, research subjects' reluctance to announce their existence may be
due to their being uncaring monsters? Not on your life, and we mean it!

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Ahasuerus
ObSF: Aliens who hide there existence from humans because humans would
be totally crushed if they discovered how primitive and insignificant
they are in the grand scheme of things. This solution to the Fermi
Paradox was brought to you by the anthropology department of
Miskatonic University.

Hm... The ... things ... that the Miskatonic University Anthropology
deparment investigates are more along the lines of "Discovering
their place in the grand scheme of things would crush the pathetic
little vermin?" (ponders for a second) "Yes, I suppose it will.
And your point is...?"

Sigh... Another victim of our competitors' propaganda machine!
Do you really think that we would hesitate to tell the world the
truth if we believed that it would benefit from it? Or that our alien
um, research subjects' reluctance to announce their existence may be
due to their being uncaring monsters? Not on your life, and we mean it!

I was considering going for the parties and athletics.

Man, those MU cheerleaders!

[Ahasuerus]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Ahasuerus
ObSF: Aliens who hide there existence from humans because humans would
be totally crushed if they discovered how primitive and insignificant
they are in the grand scheme of things. This solution to the Fermi
Paradox was brought to you by the anthropology department of
Miskatonic University.

Hm... The ... things ... that the Miskatonic University Anthropology
deparment investigates are more along the lines of "Discovering
their place in the grand scheme of things would crush the pathetic
little vermin?" (ponders for a second) "Yes, I suppose it will.
And your point is...?"

Sigh... Another victim of our competitors' propaganda machine!
Do you really think that we would hesitate to tell the world the
truth if we believed that it would benefit from it? Or that our alien
um, research subjects' reluctance to announce their existence may be
due to their being uncaring monsters? Not on your life, and we mean it!

I was considering going for the parties and athletics.

Certain parties are indisputably out of this world.

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Man, those MU cheerleaders!

Well, de gustibus non est disputandum. And when I say "gustibus", I
mean "gustibus"...

[Kevrob]

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Man, those MU cheerleaders!

Well, de gustibus non est disputandum. And when I say "gustibus", I
mean "gustibus"...

"Check out the tentacles on that one...."...?

Kevin R

[Ahasuerus]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Man, those MU cheerleaders!

Well, de gustibus non est disputandum. And when I say "gustibus", I
mean "gustibus"...

"Check out the tentacles on that one...."...?

Last week I heard a student describe one of them as "such a tasty
morsel". Which reminds me that I haven't seen him since then. I'm
sure he's been having a good time, but he really shouldn't be
ignoring his studies. Kids these days just don't think about their
future!

[mimus99]

Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that *two* religions have science-fiction villains in
them.
However, in Scientology, the bad guys are about taking souls which originated at
the beginning of the Universe - thetans - and fooling them into incarnating into
flesh bodies, where they can be burdened with neuroses (engrams).
Whereas, in the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, souls originate as new human
beings come into fleshly existence, and thus are limited by the characteristics of
the flesh from which they arise. Thus, the scientist Yakub, thousands of years
ago, could start a fiendish and cruel program of selective breeding to create that
un-natural abomination of science, the white man.
Thus, the theology of these two beliefs seems to be fundamentally incompatible,
and thus there is no chance of Xenu and Yakub having an adventure together as a
pair of science-fiction villains.

What do you expect from people (NoI) who rejected Christianity for its role
in African slavery and adopted _Islam_ (sort of) instead?

(And murdered Malcolm X when he started expanding his moral and political
horizons . . . .)

[Peter Trei]

Post by mimus99

Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that *two* religions have science-fiction villains in
them.
However, in Scientology, the bad guys are about taking souls which originated at
the beginning of the Universe - thetans - and fooling them into incarnating into
flesh bodies, where they can be burdened with neuroses (engrams).
Whereas, in the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, souls originate as new human
beings come into fleshly existence, and thus are limited by the characteristics of
the flesh from which they arise. Thus, the scientist Yakub, thousands of years
ago, could start a fiendish and cruel program of selective breeding to create that
un-natural abomination of science, the white man.
Thus, the theology of these two beliefs seems to be fundamentally incompatible,
and thus there is no chance of Xenu and Yakub having an adventure together as a
pair of science-fiction villains.

What do you expect from people (NoI) who rejected Christianity for its role
in African slavery and adopted _Islam_ (sort of) instead?
(And murdered Malcolm X when he started expanding his moral and political
horizons . . . .)

The thing that always bugged me about this is that Islamic slave traders moved vastly more slaves, and over a far longer period, than Christian ones ever did.

pt

[Kevrob]

Post by Peter Trei

Post by mimus99

Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that *two* religions have science-fiction villains in
them.
However, in Scientology, the bad guys are about taking souls which originated at
the beginning of the Universe - thetans - and fooling them into incarnating into
flesh bodies, where they can be burdened with neuroses (engrams).
Whereas, in the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, souls originate as new human
beings come into fleshly existence, and thus are limited by the characteristics of
the flesh from which they arise. Thus, the scientist Yakub, thousands of years
ago, could start a fiendish and cruel program of selective breeding to create that
un-natural abomination of science, the white man.
Thus, the theology of these two beliefs seems to be fundamentally incompatible,
and thus there is no chance of Xenu and Yakub having an adventure together as a
pair of science-fiction villains.

What do you expect from people (NoI) who rejected Christianity for its role
in African slavery and adopted _Islam_ (sort of) instead?
(And murdered Malcolm X when he started expanding his moral and political
horizons . . . .)

The thing that always bugged me about this is that Islamic slave traders moved vastly more slaves, and over a far longer period, than Christian ones ever did.

The evil white slave traders sent their cargoes to the
Americas, with hardly any Arab/Islamic involvement.

see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

Kevin R

[Peter Trei]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Peter Trei

Post by mimus99

Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that *two* religions have science-fiction villains in
them.
However, in Scientology, the bad guys are about taking souls which originated at
the beginning of the Universe - thetans - and fooling them into incarnating into
flesh bodies, where they can be burdened with neuroses (engrams).
Whereas, in the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, souls originate as new human
beings come into fleshly existence, and thus are limited by the characteristics of
the flesh from which they arise. Thus, the scientist Yakub, thousands of years
ago, could start a fiendish and cruel program of selective breeding to create that
un-natural abomination of science, the white man.
Thus, the theology of these two beliefs seems to be fundamentally incompatible,
and thus there is no chance of Xenu and Yakub having an adventure together as a
pair of science-fiction villains.

What do you expect from people (NoI) who rejected Christianity for its role
in African slavery and adopted _Islam_ (sort of) instead?
(And murdered Malcolm X when he started expanding his moral and political
horizons . . . .)

The thing that always bugged me about this is that Islamic slave traders moved vastly more slaves, and over a far longer period, than Christian ones ever did.

The evil white slave traders sent their cargoes to the
Americas, with hardly any Arab/Islamic involvement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

<obviousman>
I'm making the point that converting to Islam hardly distances African
Americans from the religion of slavers.
</obviousman>

pt

[Quadibloc]

Post by Kevrob
The evil white slave traders sent their cargoes to the
Americas, with hardly any Arab/Islamic involvement.

That's true, no Arab dhows carrying slaves made it to the harbors of Virginia.

However, where do you think those white slave traders got their slaves from?

It was sort of an assembly line. Strong, aggressive tribes attacked weak,
peaceful tribes, taking their people as slaves. Then they sold those slaves to
Arab slave traders, who then sold them on the coast to Europeans.

John Savard

[Robert Woodward]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Peter Trei

Post by mimus99

Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that *two* religions have science-fiction villains in
them.
However, in Scientology, the bad guys are about taking souls
which originated at the beginning of the Universe - thetans -
and fooling them into incarnating into flesh bodies, where they
can be burdened with neuroses (engrams).
Whereas, in the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, souls originate
as new human beings come into fleshly existence, and thus are
limited by the characteristics of the flesh from which they
arise. Thus, the scientist Yakub, thousands of years ago, could
start a fiendish and cruel program of selective breeding to
create that un-natural abomination of science, the white man.
Thus, the theology of these two beliefs seems to be
fundamentally incompatible, and thus there is no chance of Xenu
and Yakub having an adventure together as a pair of
science-fiction villains.

What do you expect from people (NoI) who rejected Christianity
for its role in African slavery and adopted _Islam_ (sort of)
instead?
(And murdered Malcolm X when he started expanding his moral and
political horizons . . . .)

The thing that always bugged me about this is that Islamic slave traders
moved vastly more slaves, and over a far longer period, than Christian ones
ever did.

The evil white slave traders sent their cargoes to the
Americas, with hardly any Arab/Islamic involvement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

I have serious doubts about that. Many (perhaps even all) of the slave
ports in West Africa had Islamic populations (true, not Arab). They did
the acquisition and selling. I believe that most of the slaves imported
into North America (with includes the Caribbean Islands) came from those
slave ports. Only the Portuguese operations in southern Africa
(supplying Brazil) were independent of Arab/Islamic slave trade.

[Kevrob]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Kevrob

Post by Peter Trei

Post by mimus99

Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that *two* religions have science-fiction
villains in
them.
However, in Scientology, the bad guys are about taking souls
which originated at the beginning of the Universe - thetans -
and fooling them into incarnating into flesh bodies, where they
can be burdened with neuroses (engrams).
Whereas, in the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, souls originate
as new human beings come into fleshly existence, and thus are
limited by the characteristics of the flesh from which they
arise. Thus, the scientist Yakub, thousands of years ago, could
start a fiendish and cruel program of selective breeding to
create that un-natural abomination of science, the white man.
Thus, the theology of these two beliefs seems to be
fundamentally incompatible, and thus there is no chance of Xenu
and Yakub having an adventure together as a pair of
science-fiction villains.

What do you expect from people (NoI) who rejected Christianity
for its role in African slavery and adopted _Islam_ (sort of)
instead?
(And murdered Malcolm X when he started expanding his moral and
political horizons . . . .)

The thing that always bugged me about this is that Islamic slave traders
moved vastly more slaves, and over a far longer period, than Christian ones
ever did.

The evil white slave traders sent their cargoes to the
Americas, with hardly any Arab/Islamic involvement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

I have serious doubts about that. Many (perhaps even all) of the slave
ports in West Africa had Islamic populations (true, not Arab). They did
the acquisition and selling. I believe that most of the slaves imported
into North America (with includes the Caribbean Islands) came from those
slave ports. Only the Portuguese operations in southern Africa
(supplying Brazil) were independent of Arab/Islamic slave trade.

I'll grant that believing Muslims captured people in the interior
and sold them on to West African slave ports. But the _mythology_
or "folk history" as opposed to the "actual history" in the minds
of most African Americans concentrates on the fanciful idea of white
slave catchers stealing from the coast. At least the new TV version
or "Roots" didn't whitewash African involvement in supplying the
white foreigners with prisoners.

For example:

[quote]

Incomplete depictions of the Atlantic slave trade are, in fact, quite common.
My 2003 study of 49 state U.S. history standards revealed that not one of
these guides to classroom content even mentioned the key role of Africans
in supplying the Atlantic slave trade. In Africa itself, however, the
slave trade is remembered quite differently. Nigerians, for example,
explicitly teach about their own role in the trade:

[/quote] - Sheldon M. Stern

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/41431

Stern cites:

[quote continues]]

Where did the supply of slaves come from? First, the Portuguese
themselves kidnapped some Africans. But the bulk of the supply came from
the Nigerians. These Nigerian middlemen moved to the interior where
they captured other Nigerians who belonged to other communities. The
middlemen also purchased many of the slaves from the people in the
interior . . . . Many Nigerian middlemen began to depend totally on
the slave trade and neglected every other business and occupation.
The result was that when the trade was abolished [by England in 1807]
these Nigerians began to protest. As years went by and the trade collapsed
such Nigerians lost their sources of income and became impoverished.

[/quote] -

Michael Omolewa, Certificate History of Nigeria (Lagos, Nigeria:
Longman Group, 1991), 96–103, cited in Dana Lindaman and Kyle Ward,
History Lessons: How Textbooks around the World Portray U.S. History
(New York: New Press, 2004), 79-83.

Polities like the Kingdom of Dahomey based their economy on slaving.

The problem with the hard truth that Africans were firmly intertwined
with Europeans in the Atlantic slave trade is that apologists for
slavery used the "blacks sold blacks" fact as a justifying argument.

One hopes that today's students are taught the wider view, that
virtually every human group has been involved in slavery.

Stern quotes a middle school textbook that was published after
his study that explains that things were more complicated.

Kevin R

[mimus99]

Post by Peter Trei

Post by mimus99

Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that *two* religions have science-fiction villains in
them.
However, in Scientology, the bad guys are about taking souls which originated at
the beginning of the Universe - thetans - and fooling them into incarnating into
flesh bodies, where they can be burdened with neuroses (engrams).
Whereas, in the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, souls originate as new human
beings come into fleshly existence, and thus are limited by the characteristics of
the flesh from which they arise. Thus, the scientist Yakub, thousands of years
ago, could start a fiendish and cruel program of selective breeding to create that
un-natural abomination of science, the white man.
Thus, the theology of these two beliefs seems to be fundamentally incompatible,
and thus there is no chance of Xenu and Yakub having an adventure together as a
pair of science-fiction villains.

What do you expect from people (NoI) who rejected Christianity for its role
in African slavery and adopted _Islam_ (sort of) instead?
(And murdered Malcolm X when he started expanding his moral and political
horizons . . . .)

The thing that always bugged me about this is that Islamic slave traders moved vastly more slaves, and over a far longer period, than Christian ones ever did.

Wot was my point. And are still at it. (Moslem slave-raids from North into
South Sudan was a major cause of the war there.)

Of course, the criminalization of being a young black male in the US joined
with for-hire prison-labor is a method of circumventing the Thirteenth
Amendment that has been growing in popularity for years.

[Kevrob]

Post by mimus99

Post by Peter Trei

Post by mimus99

Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that *two* religions have science-fiction villains in
them.
However, in Scientology, the bad guys are about taking souls which originated at
the beginning of the Universe - thetans - and fooling them into incarnating into
flesh bodies, where they can be burdened with neuroses (engrams).
Whereas, in the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, souls originate as new human
beings come into fleshly existence, and thus are limited by the characteristics of
the flesh from which they arise. Thus, the scientist Yakub, thousands of years
ago, could start a fiendish and cruel program of selective breeding to create that
un-natural abomination of science, the white man.
Thus, the theology of these two beliefs seems to be fundamentally incompatible,
and thus there is no chance of Xenu and Yakub having an adventure together as a
pair of science-fiction villains.

What do you expect from people (NoI) who rejected Christianity for its role
in African slavery and adopted _Islam_ (sort of) instead?
(And murdered Malcolm X when he started expanding his moral and political
horizons . . . .)

The thing that always bugged me about this is that Islamic slave traders moved vastly more slaves, and over a far longer period, than Christian ones ever did.

Wot was my point. And are still at it. (Moslem slave-raids from North into
South Sudan was a major cause of the war there.)
Of course, the criminalization of being a young black male in the US joined
with for-hire prison-labor is a method of circumventing the Thirteenth
Amendment that has been growing in popularity for years.

...especially when some of the initial "crimes" that get the young
and poor into the prison-industrial-complex are nonsense that shouldn't
be illegal, such as dealing weed.

If we have a 14th Amendment right to "control our own bodies,"* based on a
5th Amendment liberty right or a 9th Amendment "unenumerated right of the
people," then adults self-medicating with _whatever_ should not be illegal.
One adult selling recreational drugs, especially marijuana, ought to be
legal. The state could pass laws against fraud, either the harmless type -
selling oregeno and claiming it is pot - or against dangerous misrepresentation -
claiming you are selling clean, hydroponically grown, superganja, when you
are actually pushing ditchweed impregnated with pesticides. One could even
file a lawsuit against someone who sold you worthless or dangerous marijuana.
But winding up in the pokey for selling some bud to a bud? Ridiculous!

Then, once you have that "criminal record," and are paroled or released,
good luck getting employed. Violate probation and back you go. Get caught
doing something over the line, and your "form" earns you a tougher sentence
for the same offense compared to a "first offender." Get on that merry-go-round
and you may be lucky not to die in prison. Oh, yeah, the state will give
you a "compassionate release" if you are sick enough and old enoough, to
get your body off their medical budget and onto Medicaid's.

There's not enough restitution in our system, and too much incarceration.
We should save locking people up for serious criminal behavior by people
who need to be separated from the general public because they are a physical
threat to others.

We may lead the "league tables," but it isn't just the US, either:

[quote]

...Yet I worry that prison discourse is too focused on the United States,
when in fact incarceration transcends the American experience. Most countries
have experienced growth. Ecuador, Indonesia, Cambodia, Israel, Serbia, and
Georgia don’t share much economic, partisan, or cultural American-ness, yet
all doubled their prison populations in a decade, while Britain took three.

[/quote] Daniel D'Amico 14 Sept, 2015, "Why Nations Jail"

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2015/09/14/daniel-damico/why-nations-jail

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

[Quadibloc]

Post by Kevrob
...especially when some of the initial "crimes" that get the young
and poor into the prison-industrial-complex are nonsense that shouldn't
be illegal, such as dealing weed.
If we have a 14th Amendment right to "control our own bodies,"* based on a
5th Amendment liberty right or a 9th Amendment "unenumerated right of the
people," then adults self-medicating with _whatever_ should not be illegal.
One adult selling recreational drugs, especially marijuana, ought to be
legal.

I think our glorious Prime Minister legaized pot in Canada - despite the extreme
danger this posed to the openness of the Canada-U.S. border, and thus the
ability of our industries to export goods to the U.S. - because his mother used
the stuff, and so emotionally he couldn't see how anything could possibly be
wrong with it.

Why do countries have drug laws?

Many drugs have harmful effects on the body - and the brain. Drug use,
therefore, seriously affects an individual's employability, and fitness for
military service.

This is the root from which the legitimate State interest in regulating or
suppressing substances of abuse derives. Even alcohol - which, because of its
position in our culture, has proven difficult to outlaw - can have serious
debilitating effects if overused, can be addictive in some forms (which is why
there is such a distinction between wine and beer on the one hand, and distilled
liquors on the other), and can contribute to violent criminal acts.

As long as nations exist in a world where aggressive war from other nations is a
genuine threat, they must maintain an efficiently-functioning and productive
economy, and a healthy citizenry able to take up arms in the nation's defence.

John Savard

[William Hyde]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob
...especially when some of the initial "crimes" that get the young
and poor into the prison-industrial-complex are nonsense that shouldn't
be illegal, such as dealing weed.
If we have a 14th Amendment right to "control our own bodies,"* based on a
5th Amendment liberty right or a 9th Amendment "unenumerated right of the
people," then adults self-medicating with _whatever_ should not be illegal.
One adult selling recreational drugs, especially marijuana, ought to be
legal.

I think

To borrow one of Terry's frequent comments:

No, you don't.

our glorious Prime Minister legaized pot in Canada - despite the extreme

Post by J. Clarke
danger this posed to the openness of the Canada-U.S. border, and thus the
ability of our industries to export goods to the U.S. - because his mother used
the stuff, and so emotionally he couldn't see how anything could possibly be
wrong with it.

To borrow again:

Get help. I mean it.

William Hyde

[Quadibloc]

Post by William Hyde
Get help. I mean it.

If the personal is political, why can't the political be personal?

John Savard

[William Hyde]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by William Hyde
Get help. I mean it.

If the personal is political, why can't the political be personal?

Think first. Type second.

William Hyde

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 22:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Kevrob
...especially when some of the initial "crimes" that get the young
and poor into the prison-industrial-complex are nonsense that shouldn't
be illegal, such as dealing weed.
If we have a 14th Amendment right to "control our own bodies,"* based on a
5th Amendment liberty right or a 9th Amendment "unenumerated right of the
people," then adults self-medicating with _whatever_ should not be illegal.
One adult selling recreational drugs, especially marijuana, ought to be
legal.

I think our glorious Prime Minister legaized pot in Canada - despite the extreme
danger this posed to the openness of the Canada-U.S. border, and thus the
ability of our industries to export goods to the U.S. - because his mother used
the stuff, and so emotionally he couldn't see how anything could possibly be
wrong with it.
Why do countries have drug laws?
Many drugs have harmful effects on the body - and the brain. Drug use,
therefore, seriously affects an individual's employability, and fitness for
military service.
This is the root from which the legitimate State interest in regulating or
suppressing substances of abuse derives. Even alcohol - which, because of its
position in our culture, has proven difficult to outlaw - can have serious
debilitating effects if overused, can be addictive in some forms (which is why
there is such a distinction between wine and beer on the one hand, and distilled
liquors on the other), and can contribute to violent criminal acts.
As long as nations exist in a world where aggressive war from other nations is a
genuine threat, they must maintain an efficiently-functioning and productive
economy, and a healthy citizenry able to take up arms in the nation's defence.

In the United States it has nothing to do with any of that crap, it's
just another way to harass black people.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Kevrob
...especially when some of the initial "crimes" that get the young
and poor into the prison-industrial-complex are nonsense that shouldn't
be illegal, such as dealing weed.
If we have a 14th Amendment right to "control our own bodies,"* based on a
5th Amendment liberty right or a 9th Amendment "unenumerated right of the
people," then adults self-medicating with _whatever_ should not be illegal.
One adult selling recreational drugs, especially marijuana, ought to be
legal.

I think our glorious Prime Minister legaized pot in Canada - despite the extreme
danger this posed to the openness of the Canada-U.S. border, and thus the
ability of our industries to export goods to the U.S. - because his mother used
the stuff, and so emotionally he couldn't see how anything could possibly be
wrong with it.
Why do countries have drug laws?
Many drugs have harmful effects on the body - and the brain. Drug use,
therefore, seriously affects an individual's employability, and fitness for
military service.
This is the root from which the legitimate State interest in regulating or
suppressing substances of abuse derives. Even alcohol - which, because of its
position in our culture, has proven difficult to outlaw - can have serious
debilitating effects if overused, can be addictive in some forms (which is why
there is such a distinction between wine and beer on the one hand, and distilled
liquors on the other), and can contribute to violent criminal acts.
As long as nations exist in a world where aggressive war from other nations is a
genuine threat, they must maintain an efficiently-functioning and productive
economy, and a healthy citizenry able to take up arms in the nation's defence.
John Savard

When drugs started being regulated in the USA in 1906:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act

Lynn

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Lynn McGuire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act
Lynn

Reportedly, my grandmother never thought food tasted as good after that.

[Kevrob]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Lynn McGuire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act
Lynn

Reportedly, my grandmother never thought food tasted as good after that.

Let us not forget:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Act

Passed in late 1914, effective 1915.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/war-on-drugs-a-century-of-failure-113936

Kevin R

[William Hyde]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Lynn McGuire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act
Lynn

Reportedly, my grandmother never thought food tasted as good after that.

Well it did take the opium out of baby food.

William Hyde

[mimus99]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Kevrob
...especially when some of the initial "crimes" that get the young
and poor into the prison-industrial-complex are nonsense that shouldn't
be illegal, such as dealing weed.
If we have a 14th Amendment right to "control our own bodies,"* based on a
5th Amendment liberty right or a 9th Amendment "unenumerated right of the
people," then adults self-medicating with _whatever_ should not be illegal.
One adult selling recreational drugs, especially marijuana, ought to be
legal.

I think our glorious Prime Minister legaized pot in Canada - despite the extreme
danger this posed to the openness of the Canada-U.S. border, and thus the
ability of our industries to export goods to the U.S. - because his mother used
the stuff, and so emotionally he couldn't see how anything could possibly be
wrong with it.
Why do countries have drug laws?
Many drugs have harmful effects on the body - and the brain. Drug use,
therefore, seriously affects an individual's employability, and fitness for
military service.
This is the root from which the legitimate State interest in regulating or
suppressing substances of abuse derives. Even alcohol - which, because of its
position in our culture, has proven difficult to outlaw - can have serious
debilitating effects if overused, can be addictive in some forms (which is why
there is such a distinction between wine and beer on the one hand, and distilled
liquors on the other), and can contribute to violent criminal acts.
As long as nations exist in a world where aggressive war from other nations is a
genuine threat, they must maintain an efficiently-functioning and productive
economy, and a healthy citizenry able to take up arms in the nation's defence.

I would place the origin of the drug-laws squarely on the "blue" and "vice"
laws in general, and on racism, opium-prohibition in the late 1800s being
aimed at the Chinese and pot- and coke-prohibition in the 1930s at blacks,
although the Drug War from Nixon on has been aimed at the young, liberals
_and_ blacks (see Smoke and Mirrors) . . . .

Thomas Szasz's little book on the subject, Ceremonial Chemistry, is
interesting and amusing, although really somewhat shallow and formulaic
(the Appendix is a nice little collection of historical examples of
panaceas and prohibitions), and not nearly as funny as his book on the
"sexologists", Sex by Prescription.

[J. Clarke]

Post by mimus99

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Kevrob
...especially when some of the initial "crimes" that get the young
and poor into the prison-industrial-complex are nonsense that shouldn't
be illegal, such as dealing weed.
If we have a 14th Amendment right to "control our own bodies,"* based on a
5th Amendment liberty right or a 9th Amendment "unenumerated right of the
people," then adults self-medicating with _whatever_ should not be illegal.
One adult selling recreational drugs, especially marijuana, ought to be
legal.

I think our glorious Prime Minister legaized pot in Canada - despite the extreme
danger this posed to the openness of the Canada-U.S. border, and thus the
ability of our industries to export goods to the U.S. - because his mother used
the stuff, and so emotionally he couldn't see how anything could possibly be
wrong with it.
Why do countries have drug laws?
Many drugs have harmful effects on the body - and the brain. Drug use,
therefore, seriously affects an individual's employability, and fitness for
military service.
This is the root from which the legitimate State interest in regulating or
suppressing substances of abuse derives. Even alcohol - which, because of its
position in our culture, has proven difficult to outlaw - can have serious
debilitating effects if overused, can be addictive in some forms (which is why
there is such a distinction between wine and beer on the one hand, and distilled
liquors on the other), and can contribute to violent criminal acts.
As long as nations exist in a world where aggressive war from other nations is a
genuine threat, they must maintain an efficiently-functioning and productive
economy, and a healthy citizenry able to take up arms in the nation's defence.

I would place the origin of the drug-laws squarely on the "blue" and "vice"
laws in general, and on racism, opium-prohibition in the late 1800s being
aimed at the Chinese and pot- and coke-prohibition in the 1930s at blacks,
although the Drug War from Nixon on has been aimed at the young, liberals
_and_ blacks (see Smoke and Mirrors) . . . .
Thomas Szasz's little book on the subject, Ceremonial Chemistry, is
interesting and amusing, although really somewhat shallow and formulaic
(the Appendix is a nice little collection of historical examples of
panaceas and prohibitions), and not nearly as funny as his book on the
"sexologists", Sex by Prescription.

Quadi seems to have this notion that the US government is motivated by
a desire to produce good soldiers for the Faterland or good workers
for the Rodina or some such. I don't think it actually cares about
either, what it most cares about is creating easily manipulated
voters.

[Quadibloc]

Post by mimus99
What do you expect from people (NoI) who rejected Christianity for its role
in African slavery and adopted _Islam_ (sort of) instead?

Sa'udi Arabia abolished slavery... in 1970.

So I see your point.

Elijah Muhammad _would_ have to recount that Yakub's interest in the sciences
was sparked by seeing a magnet attract something... because, of course, that is
a famous anecdote about Einstein's childhood.

Not only that, but his account in "Message to the Blackman" claims that today's
Wassermann test is simply Yakub's selective breeding program in disguise.

Tinfoil hats can have tragic consequences.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by mimus99
What do you expect from people (NoI) who rejected Christianity for its role
in African slavery and adopted _Islam_ (sort of) instead?

Sa'udi Arabia abolished slavery... in 1970.
So I see your point.
Elijah Muhammad _would_ have to recount that Yakub's interest in the sciences
was sparked by seeing a magnet attract something... because, of course, that is
a famous anecdote about Einstein's childhood.
Not only that, but his account in "Message to the Blackman" claims that today's
Wassermann test is simply Yakub's selective breeding program in disguise.
Tinfoil hats can have tragic consequences.

Of course, when people are ground into the dirt, treated cruelly, and regarded
with contempt - not only will that breed anger, and hatred in return, but in
addition, as a psychological defense mechanism to restore self-esteem, it
shouldn't be surprised that those so treated will look for a way to regard their
oppressors as contemptible in return for additional reasons besides being
wicked.

John Savard