hahah that's hardcore. I often see methheads here in northern california, they disgust me. Why waste time and money trying to help people who have already ruined their lives? They should all be killed, put them out of their misery.
Thats harsh why so?
Its an unchristian to not offer any path to fixing their life.
replace meth with heroin and youve got yourself a deal!
but killing is bads....maybe a druggie colony where they can L2 grow their own food and govern themselves
The girl in the story seems tragic but she was aware and did it anyway.
Its a tough decision, on one hand you have people who've ruined themselves, cut off every avenue to develop and contribute.
They'll never have a decent job, they won't have white christian children or if they do they won't raise them right.
I disagree on the killing though, I think they just need to be re-purposed in life. A life-long probation/parole situation.
Its the only thing I've seen fix these people, constant discipline.
For the women if attractive and clean make them work in brothels to make them contribute funds.
When they can no longer do this make them do public cleaning and live in prison barracks.
Give the men jobs that are menial and hard to fill. And at the end of the day make them return to a barracks.
It will take care of them, make them contribute to society, and keep them under supervision.
literally nothing wrong with doing as many drugs as you want even if it kills you it's your life to throw away. It's no one's place to tell you what you do with your own body and mind.
What's with all the hate for drug addicts? Have people abandoned the concept of human civility? These are people in an altered mind-state, not monsters, not animals. Feeling superior because you've never fought addiction doesn't mean you have to hate those who struggle with it now.
Not OP, but I have zero sympathy or empathy for people who did shit recreationally and got hooked or fucked up their lives or whatever. Too dumb to live.
I have nothing but sympathy for people who've been in accidents, had surgery, or whatever and got prescribed fistfulls of opoids, and then oops, they're addicts. There but for the grace of god, et cetera.
To answer the first question. The more harsh elements of /pol/ are influencing people's outlooks, but this is only for the people in the more illicit corners of the internet as reddit being the internets main forum has strict criteria as to the opinions you're allowed.
To answer the second, its not people are abandoning their civility its that /pol/'s harsher elements have brought up a good point.
Why should we have sympathy for the self inflicted suffering from the lifestyle of absorbed self-interest?
But to concede I do find compassion for those who are trying to get out of it and start doing the right thing. I do disagree with placing them on a pedestal.
ahh but i think it's valuable to take into account the living conditions/environment of those who start for self interest. and how do you subcategorize the self interest? is it for escapism, or is it for luxury?
i think these are important things to consider
What makes you draw the conclusion that anyone would place drug addicts on a pedestal? I'm genuinely curious.
You concede that many if not most (western) people won't agree with OP's edgy stances, but since the majority does not act whereby they would disprove his general notion of addicted persons as being below us, I'd argue that we don't treat addicted folks in a way that would suggest any preferential treatment of them whatsoever:
Do you have addicted friends? Do you really care about some homeless druggies vegetating in the train stations on a level that is not merely theoretical, i.e. do you really interact with those people in any meaningful manner to better their situation?
Most people (not excluding myself), I would reckon, do not.
They care about the economic and social implications of drug addiction, which doesn't mean they put drug addicts as persons on any sort of pedestal at all; their interest in this sombre topic is motivated by considerations of utility and self-interest here (which are perfectly valid motivations.)
To sum it up, it does not matter if you have some sort of abstract sympathy for someone or not if the way you act towards them is exactly the same in both cases, or does it?
To OP: Look up the negative impact of suicide and premature deaths on our economies. Do you really think the overhead of establishing institutions with the sole purpose of killing thousands of (mostly young) people would be pecuniarily viable? If persons are being born, the money is already "wasted" and killing them not only won't save you anything but also forego any possibility of turning them into economically viable entities again, especially if you'd like to pull off the killings reasonably "humane", if you accede to the (in my opinion absurd) premise of the possibility of civilised involuntary euthanasia. Don't cut yourself on your edge, and maybe restrict this kind of posting to the place where the fish don't swim.