Upload
Login or register

mexicoman

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 24
Date Signed Up:12/11/2010
Last Login:6/25/2016
Location:Washington
Stats
Content Thumbs: 1871 total,  2305 ,  434
Comment Thumbs: 1440 total,  2009 ,  569
Content Level Progress: 20% (20/100)
Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 118 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 92% (92/100)
Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:150946
Times Content Favorited:110 times
Total Comments Made:696
FJ Points:3254
Favorite Tags: the (11) | to (6) | game (5) | in (5) | a (4) | for (4) | on (4) | You (4) | are (3) | i (3) | tags (3) | your (3) | and (2) | black (2) | do (2) | fags (2) | High (2) | kill (2) | Lost (2) | of (2)
Im a decent guy, a good one when you really get to know me. I like to eat culture and shit out all of the mediocre soul dead mental scarring I recieve in the form of, writing, or performing humor conceived in and filtered through my own prejudices.I also love the shit out of the Metal Gear Solid Franchise and free stuff.

latest user's comments

#41489 - No, the law is not meant for social engineering. Its mean to p…  [+] (4 replies) 07/16/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar
#41538 - oxan (07/16/2013) [-]
>No, the law is not meant for social engineering.
Actually, acting as a mechanism for social change is one of the purposes for law.
User avatar
#41580 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
That's not correct. I know it can look that way when you consider the civil rights movement, the abolition of slavery, and the gay marriage movement but it isn't. Because social engineering is defined by merriam websters dictionary as "management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society : applied social science", and that doesn't fit what those events did to change things. What those events were really amounted the deconstruction of institutionalized persecution. It was the ending of forms social engineering through subjugation when you think about it. This wasn't the management of human beings, this was halting the actions of people who were trying to do that themselves.
User avatar
#41595 - oxan (07/16/2013) [-]
I'll concede that acting as a mechanism for social change is different from social engineering. However, what you have described is the law acting as a mechanism for social change. Thus, I believe my point remains.
User avatar
#41637 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
Social change insofar as you would expect from an institution designed to protect people's freedoms and protect people from force. Those instances were just the law finally doing its job. Just because the law changed to compensate for progress in human tolerance for those changes does not really mean much other than to say its sad that people for so long artificially changed the nature of the justice system to fit their prejudices. The law might change society, but that is not its purpose.
#40881 - You misunderstand the law and what its there for. The law is m…  [+] (6 replies) 07/12/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar
#41330 - naxo (07/14/2013) [-]
Perhaps it has no repercussions for anyone other than you. However, if you are in the percentage that develops anxiety, depression or psychosis, then it begins to affect the people around you.

There have been a number of studies showing a relationship between attempted suicides and cannabis use. I think it's pretty clear that suicide is a negative thing and that the law should work to reduce suicide rates..
User avatar
#41489 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
No, the law is not meant for social engineering. Its mean to protect people from victimization. I don't believe that anyone's right to do something should be influenced by the worst worst possible outcomes of such a thing. The law should only influence people's rights when they impede on the rights of others. If im on my property and im getting stoned because I like it, it is no business of yours. It isn't the governments business either. I would argue against your vague mention of a statistic that correlates suicide with cannabis use, but that would just deviate from the real point. Cigarettes are objectively worse for you than marijuana, but I would still die for the liberty that allows people to smoke them. Its not up to me or the majority of people to say that someone can't smoke a cigarette, it is their choice and they will smoke it if they want to. What you advocate for ultimately builds open disrespect for the law, because it imposes upon people ridiculous standards. When you have a people that mistakes the law's standard for the standard of ethics, that brings you problems. Im not asking you to do any drugs, im not even asking you to be happy about it. Im just asking you to leave drug users alone, and to stop advocating this legal harassment and perpetuation of a corrupt prison industrial complex. Just leave drug users alone, that shouldn't be a heavy request.
User avatar
#41538 - oxan (07/16/2013) [-]
>No, the law is not meant for social engineering.
Actually, acting as a mechanism for social change is one of the purposes for law.
User avatar
#41580 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
That's not correct. I know it can look that way when you consider the civil rights movement, the abolition of slavery, and the gay marriage movement but it isn't. Because social engineering is defined by merriam websters dictionary as "management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society : applied social science", and that doesn't fit what those events did to change things. What those events were really amounted the deconstruction of institutionalized persecution. It was the ending of forms social engineering through subjugation when you think about it. This wasn't the management of human beings, this was halting the actions of people who were trying to do that themselves.
User avatar
#41595 - oxan (07/16/2013) [-]
I'll concede that acting as a mechanism for social change is different from social engineering. However, what you have described is the law acting as a mechanism for social change. Thus, I believe my point remains.
User avatar
#41637 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
Social change insofar as you would expect from an institution designed to protect people's freedoms and protect people from force. Those instances were just the law finally doing its job. Just because the law changed to compensate for progress in human tolerance for those changes does not really mean much other than to say its sad that people for so long artificially changed the nature of the justice system to fit their prejudices. The law might change society, but that is not its purpose.
#40836 - Explain to me why your personal preferences should be the law …  [+] (8 replies) 07/12/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar
#40860 - naxo (07/12/2013) [-]
Same reason there are laws in almost all societies that prohibit people doing certain things to themselves.

Also because your decisions on what you do with your body have an effect on the people around you and not only yourself.

If you can isolate yourself to the point that no one knows of your existence, then feel free to take all manner of drugs. However, while you are part of a family, a community, a society, you need to stick to the rules of that group.

I am stating my opinion on what I believe the rules should be for a hypothetical society, in which I create the rules (or at least the ones relating drug use).
User avatar
#40881 - mexicoman (07/12/2013) [-]
You misunderstand the law and what its there for. The law is meant to protect people from victimization. Drug laws do not fulfill this function. My smoking a joint in no way leads to anyone else being afflicted. Its just me on the couch listening to Pink Floyd. You would put me in jail for this?
User avatar
#41330 - naxo (07/14/2013) [-]
Perhaps it has no repercussions for anyone other than you. However, if you are in the percentage that develops anxiety, depression or psychosis, then it begins to affect the people around you.

There have been a number of studies showing a relationship between attempted suicides and cannabis use. I think it's pretty clear that suicide is a negative thing and that the law should work to reduce suicide rates..
User avatar
#41489 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
No, the law is not meant for social engineering. Its mean to protect people from victimization. I don't believe that anyone's right to do something should be influenced by the worst worst possible outcomes of such a thing. The law should only influence people's rights when they impede on the rights of others. If im on my property and im getting stoned because I like it, it is no business of yours. It isn't the governments business either. I would argue against your vague mention of a statistic that correlates suicide with cannabis use, but that would just deviate from the real point. Cigarettes are objectively worse for you than marijuana, but I would still die for the liberty that allows people to smoke them. Its not up to me or the majority of people to say that someone can't smoke a cigarette, it is their choice and they will smoke it if they want to. What you advocate for ultimately builds open disrespect for the law, because it imposes upon people ridiculous standards. When you have a people that mistakes the law's standard for the standard of ethics, that brings you problems. Im not asking you to do any drugs, im not even asking you to be happy about it. Im just asking you to leave drug users alone, and to stop advocating this legal harassment and perpetuation of a corrupt prison industrial complex. Just leave drug users alone, that shouldn't be a heavy request.
User avatar
#41538 - oxan (07/16/2013) [-]
>No, the law is not meant for social engineering.
Actually, acting as a mechanism for social change is one of the purposes for law.
User avatar
#41580 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
That's not correct. I know it can look that way when you consider the civil rights movement, the abolition of slavery, and the gay marriage movement but it isn't. Because social engineering is defined by merriam websters dictionary as "management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society : applied social science", and that doesn't fit what those events did to change things. What those events were really amounted the deconstruction of institutionalized persecution. It was the ending of forms social engineering through subjugation when you think about it. This wasn't the management of human beings, this was halting the actions of people who were trying to do that themselves.
User avatar
#41595 - oxan (07/16/2013) [-]
I'll concede that acting as a mechanism for social change is different from social engineering. However, what you have described is the law acting as a mechanism for social change. Thus, I believe my point remains.
User avatar
#41637 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
Social change insofar as you would expect from an institution designed to protect people's freedoms and protect people from force. Those instances were just the law finally doing its job. Just because the law changed to compensate for progress in human tolerance for those changes does not really mean much other than to say its sad that people for so long artificially changed the nature of the justice system to fit their prejudices. The law might change society, but that is not its purpose.
#40707 - Why do you refuse to use recreational drugs? Does you…  [+] (28 replies) 07/11/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar
#40740 - feelythefeel (07/11/2013) [-]
I refuse to use them for similar reasons to oxan, although maybe not as extreme. I'll still let others enjoy stuff like alcohol and even marijuana if they really want to.

It depends. Although I would never use it myself, I support the decriminalization of marijuana. As for other drugs, not so much.
User avatar
#40708 - oxan (07/11/2013) [-]
I refuse to use recreational drugs as they snare the senses and enslave the brain.

I support the continuing restriction of drugs and the prosecution of dealers. I'm more in favour of rehabilitation of users. I support continued efforts to gradually phase out tobacco use, and advocate increasing the drinking age to 21 (I'm Australia, by the way) and efforts to suppress underage drinking.
User avatar
#40834 - mexicoman (07/12/2013) [-]
Drugs can enslave your brain but quite frankly that isn't a guarantee with even the harder drugs. They may snare your senses but as a marijuana user I can attest that its sensory afflictions are positive and do not last very long, making them perfect for personal leisure time.
#40713 - jewishcommienazi has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#40806 - naxo (07/11/2013) [-]
Some choices need to be restricted, just because they're personal doesn't make them inherently good..

If I chose to rape someone, or inject heroin, I'd be making a personal choice.. Luckily these things are illegal and I have been educated regarding the consequences.

I think education and restriction should go hand in hand in attempting to phase out certain aspects of society.
#40807 - jewishcommienazi has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#40808 - naxo (07/11/2013) [-]
Really? For what reasons?

Personally I think all recreational drugs should be illegal and I have a lot of problems with the nature of the pharmaceutical industry as well..
#40809 - jewishcommienazi has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#40810 - naxo (07/12/2013) [-]
But where do you draw the line?

Would you let people take PCP? Krokodil? Oxi? Bath Salts?
#40811 - jewishcommienazi has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#40814 - naxo (07/12/2013) [-]
And why do you think people should be able to choose to take these drugs? They have no positive effects, heroin destroys lives and that's about it.

Would you allow it because you think that anyone who chooses to take heroin deserves to suffer the effects of heroin (/heroin addiction)
User avatar
#40836 - mexicoman (07/12/2013) [-]
Explain to me why your personal preferences should be the law of the land? Why is it that you get to decide for me what I can and can't do with my body that I alone own?
User avatar
#40860 - naxo (07/12/2013) [-]
Same reason there are laws in almost all societies that prohibit people doing certain things to themselves.

Also because your decisions on what you do with your body have an effect on the people around you and not only yourself.

If you can isolate yourself to the point that no one knows of your existence, then feel free to take all manner of drugs. However, while you are part of a family, a community, a society, you need to stick to the rules of that group.

I am stating my opinion on what I believe the rules should be for a hypothetical society, in which I create the rules (or at least the ones relating drug use).
User avatar
#40881 - mexicoman (07/12/2013) [-]
You misunderstand the law and what its there for. The law is meant to protect people from victimization. Drug laws do not fulfill this function. My smoking a joint in no way leads to anyone else being afflicted. Its just me on the couch listening to Pink Floyd. You would put me in jail for this?
User avatar
#41330 - naxo (07/14/2013) [-]
Perhaps it has no repercussions for anyone other than you. However, if you are in the percentage that develops anxiety, depression or psychosis, then it begins to affect the people around you.

There have been a number of studies showing a relationship between attempted suicides and cannabis use. I think it's pretty clear that suicide is a negative thing and that the law should work to reduce suicide rates..
User avatar
#41489 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
No, the law is not meant for social engineering. Its mean to protect people from victimization. I don't believe that anyone's right to do something should be influenced by the worst worst possible outcomes of such a thing. The law should only influence people's rights when they impede on the rights of others. If im on my property and im getting stoned because I like it, it is no business of yours. It isn't the governments business either. I would argue against your vague mention of a statistic that correlates suicide with cannabis use, but that would just deviate from the real point. Cigarettes are objectively worse for you than marijuana, but I would still die for the liberty that allows people to smoke them. Its not up to me or the majority of people to say that someone can't smoke a cigarette, it is their choice and they will smoke it if they want to. What you advocate for ultimately builds open disrespect for the law, because it imposes upon people ridiculous standards. When you have a people that mistakes the law's standard for the standard of ethics, that brings you problems. Im not asking you to do any drugs, im not even asking you to be happy about it. Im just asking you to leave drug users alone, and to stop advocating this legal harassment and perpetuation of a corrupt prison industrial complex. Just leave drug users alone, that shouldn't be a heavy request.
User avatar
#41538 - oxan (07/16/2013) [-]
>No, the law is not meant for social engineering.
Actually, acting as a mechanism for social change is one of the purposes for law.
User avatar
#41580 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
That's not correct. I know it can look that way when you consider the civil rights movement, the abolition of slavery, and the gay marriage movement but it isn't. Because social engineering is defined by merriam websters dictionary as "management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society : applied social science", and that doesn't fit what those events did to change things. What those events were really amounted the deconstruction of institutionalized persecution. It was the ending of forms social engineering through subjugation when you think about it. This wasn't the management of human beings, this was halting the actions of people who were trying to do that themselves.
User avatar
#41595 - oxan (07/16/2013) [-]
I'll concede that acting as a mechanism for social change is different from social engineering. However, what you have described is the law acting as a mechanism for social change. Thus, I believe my point remains.
User avatar
#41637 - mexicoman (07/16/2013) [-]
Social change insofar as you would expect from an institution designed to protect people's freedoms and protect people from force. Those instances were just the law finally doing its job. Just because the law changed to compensate for progress in human tolerance for those changes does not really mean much other than to say its sad that people for so long artificially changed the nature of the justice system to fit their prejudices. The law might change society, but that is not its purpose.
#40816 - jewishcommienazi has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#40780 - oxan (07/11/2013) [-]
They should go hand in hand, restrictions an education.
#40783 - jewishcommienazi has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#40785 - oxan (07/11/2013) [-]
Or we can avoid it completely?
#40787 - jewishcommienazi has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#40794 - oxan (07/11/2013) [-]
Use generally increases in poorer areas, it's mostly a symptom of capitalism. It's like the annexation of East Germany: drug use spiked significantly.
#40795 - jewishcommienazi has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#40796 - oxan (07/11/2013) [-]
The only 'legit' dealer should be the state, and it should distribute drugs at a high rate, and only as part of a rehabilitation program.

But yes, illegal dealers should be severely punished.
#40706 - Zimmerman is a bad liar. He tried hiding all the funds he'd be…  [+] (2 replies) 07/11/2013 on Politics - politics news,... -1
User avatar
#41015 - undeadwill (07/13/2013) [-]
why Martins DNA had never been found on his gun and why he had been stalking the kid for the crime of walking home.
>Shot in self defense close range
> Stalking, he's neighborhood watch and the cops don't do shit.
#40712 - pebar (07/11/2013) [-]
have you seen the prosecution?
#14 - I like it. Its hard to distinguish which DLC gives what becaus…  [+] (1 reply) 07/09/2013 on so uuh 0
User avatar
#15 - ktbmnf (07/09/2013) [-]
that is a lot to mull over, thanks