BioShock's Andrew Ryan Tells Kids: "Say Nope to Dope"
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
That would be a huge mistake, as that game is fucking amazing. Besides, I'm fairly certain that this is the work of someone not affiliated with Irrational Games who made these and just did them because they thought it would be amusing. As Andrew Ryan is a fictional character, he can't exactly give or refuse consent to have his likeness used, so it makes little sense to not play a top notch game just because his image was used in a way you don't like.Haydyn said:
Play BioShock, dude. You'll thank yourself for it. Though do avoid the sequel.
RvLeshrac said:
Well, to be entirely fair research and statistics are a joke nowadays in most cases, since it all comes down to what the people presenting that information want you to think. The media ultimatly winds up being the determining factor in most cases by what it decides to give a platform to. In general people will always lionize and present the research that backs them up, and if the media happens to be on their side, so much the better. When it comes to drugs the media is actually FAIRLY well balanced since it does both the whole "say no to drugs" thing while at the same time we've been seeing the promotion of Stoner culture almost constnantly through guys like Kevin Smith, or Cheech and Chong.
Speaking for myself, when it comes to drugs in general I tend to look back to things like "The Opium Wars" (look it up). Basically back around the time of the British Empire we had massive drug cartels operating out of Asia and The Middle East bringing poppies into Europe and selling them in vast quantities. They got a lot of people addicted, including leaders and politicians, and were using the control of the drugs to try and leverage the goverment and policies. Simply trying to enforce trade embargos alone wasn't enough. Stopping the poppy trade and crippling the goverments and cartels was a big part of the motivation for a lot of Britan's wartime behavior. Incidently a lot of the poverty through places like Asia and the Middle East came about as a direct result of Britan taking down the cartels. Countries like "Afghanistan" are dirt poor, but then again a lot of that is because their only major product is poppies, and none of the major countries are willing to let them engage in free trade with them.
The word "Assasin" actually comes from the word "Hashassin" (I think I have that right) which was an enforcer for the Arabic drug cartels, who killed whomever was nessicary to promote the business and trade. This is one of the reasons why I sort of get a case of "lulz" when I look at Assasin's creed, since it's set in The Middle East, and has nothing to do with the drug trade at all. I understand the modern usage of the term, but when I hear the term used in the game, I keep thinking that instead of fighting Templars or whatever they should be sending the guy out to make examples out of Junkies who can't pay.
That's deliberatly simplistic of course. The point that I'm making here is that drugs kill nations. What's more, for all arguements about the abillity to produce domestic supplies of things like poppies, there is no way nations like the US or Europe even with current technology could produce anywhere near as much of this as the massive fields in the eastern lands. The end result with a free drug trade is going to be those nations undercutting domestic producers (one way or another), eventually buying them out, and then seeing a population of literal addicts dependant entirely on a foreign product. All the stuff with oil is scary enough, but now imagine what happens if you say get 90% of the US population hooked on heroin, and then the suppliers tell us "do this, or we cut your nation off". That right there is EXACTLY what the opium wars were ultimatly about.
Most people don't think of things quite this way, and I think that's one of the reasons why you have as much momentum behind the pro-drugs movement as it is. Believe it or not, there are some VERY good reasons why there are hardcore anti-drug laws, above and beyond health concerns.
Now ironically, if the US was to do something like annex a major poppy producing nation or three as additional states, we might be able to lay off a bit, because then we'd have the abillity to engage in domestic production, and it would be entirely about the health problems and so on (which are still pretty bad). I'd still oppose the legalization of drugs, but one of the big reasons for keeping them illegal, and the one people tend not think much about, wouldn't have quite as much force. After all, if the US had it's own supply and could meet it's own needs, it wouldn't be dependant on other countries. Legalizing drugs is never a good idea IMO, but it does present some food for thought.
That went on entirely too long. You're discussing drugs which research shows to have markedly adverse effects on the human body.Therumancer said:RvLeshrac said:
Well, to be entirely fair research and statistics are a joke nowadays in most cases, since it all comes down to what the people presenting that information want you to think. The media ultimatly winds up being the determining factor in most cases by what it decides to give a platform to. In general people will always lionize and present the research that backs them up, and if the media happens to be on their side, so much the better. When it comes to drugs the media is actually FAIRLY well balanced since it does both the whole "say no to drugs" thing while at the same time we've been seeing the promotion of Stoner culture almost constnantly through guys like Kevin Smith, or Cheech and Chong.
Speaking for myself, when it comes to drugs in general I tend to look back to things like "The Opium Wars" (look it up). Basically back around the time of the British Empire we had massive drug cartels operating out of Asia and The Middle East bringing poppies into Europe and selling them in vast quantities. They got a lot of people addicted, including leaders and politicians, and were using the control of the drugs to try and leverage the goverment and policies. Simply trying to enforce trade embargos alone wasn't enough. Stopping the poppy trade and crippling the goverments and cartels was a big part of the motivation for a lot of Britan's wartime behavior. Incidently a lot of the poverty through places like Asia and the Middle East came about as a direct result of Britan taking down the cartels. Countries like "Afghanistan" are dirt poor, but then again a lot of that is because their only major product is poppies, and none of the major countries are willing to let them engage in free trade with them.
The word "Assasin" actually comes from the word "Hashassin" (I think I have that right) which was an enforcer for the Arabic drug cartels, who killed whomever was nessicary to promote the business and trade. This is one of the reasons why I sort of get a case of "lulz" when I look at Assasin's creed, since it's set in The Middle East, and has nothing to do with the drug trade at all. I understand the modern usage of the term, but when I hear the term used in the game, I keep thinking that instead of fighting Templars or whatever they should be sending the guy out to make examples out of Junkies who can't pay.
That's deliberatly simplistic of course. The point that I'm making here is that drugs kill nations. What's more, for all arguements about the abillity to produce domestic supplies of things like poppies, there is no way nations like the US or Europe even with current technology could produce anywhere near as much of this as the massive fields in the eastern lands. The end result with a free drug trade is going to be those nations undercutting domestic producers (one way or another), eventually buying them out, and then seeing a population of literal addicts dependant entirely on a foreign product. All the stuff with oil is scary enough, but now imagine what happens if you say get 90% of the US population hooked on heroin, and then the suppliers tell us "do this, or we cut your nation off". That right there is EXACTLY what the opium wars were ultimatly about.
Most people don't think of things quite this way, and I think that's one of the reasons why you have as much momentum behind the pro-drugs movement as it is. Believe it or not, there are some VERY good reasons why there are hardcore anti-drug laws, above and beyond health concerns.
Now ironically, if the US was to do something like annex a major poppy producing nation or three as additional states, we might be able to lay off a bit, because then we'd have the abillity to engage in domestic production, and it would be entirely about the health problems and so on (which are still pretty bad). I'd still oppose the legalization of drugs, but one of the big reasons for keeping them illegal, and the one people tend not think much about, wouldn't have quite as much force. After all, if the US had it's own supply and could meet it's own needs, it wouldn't be dependant on other countries. Legalizing drugs is never a good idea IMO, but it does present some food for thought.
Your argument is that kids will start doing heroin. Except all the research shows that using heroin recreationally is a *bad* idea, and one would assume that a curriculum which encourages kids to pay attention to good science would also encourage belief in good research when it shows that something is deleterious.
I'm not really sure where you're going with the Renaissance history lesson, but the point about domestic production is a pretty terrible one. The US has enough fallow land and the appropriate climates to allow for the production of most recreational drugs, most especially the ones which have been shown to be benign, or at minimum no more harmful than already legal drugs, in normal quantities.
----------------------
Something suddenly struck me, and I'm going to quote from Wikipedia here:
I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Saintly Europeans were fighting the evil Chinese and Arabs during "The Opium Wars". Westerners were illegally smuggling massive quantities of opium into China to force the Chinese into dependence on western trade.Wikipedia said:
I hate these PSA style BS campaigns. Perhaps if the schools/parents were to address the issue truthfully the numbers would go down. You can't use the same kind of ad to say Pot is bad to say Crack is bad. Everyone after a certain age finds out that pot has almost no harm. If you use the same ads for both then when people find out that pot isn't bad, why wouldn't they think the crack ads were lying too?
I have a fundamental distrust of anyone who presents me with an absolute in place of an argument.
Im looking at you Status and I agree Spice and Wold are awesome (Wheres season 3 >_<)Macgyvercas said:
And I agree that If you miss Bioshock, you will regret not playing it!
and yes Kids, now we learn how to play gold...
Andrew: NOOOOOOOOOOOO *DEAD*
