Oh wow.

That level of “I was wrong” is genuinely rare to see anywhere. Mad props for changing your position and even admitting to just how wrong you were.

This may sound sarcastic, but it’s not.

You’re “one of the good ones”. (That’s slightly sarcastic, as the sentence in itself implies discrimination.)

America might not be doing well, but at least there are people like you, brave enough to go against the tide. And I believe that’s sort of a core American value. Like not a modern one, but an ideal one which someone might’ve been philosophising over once. Going against the system just isn’t a thing here to that extent. Levels of conformity, yeah, that’s what I mean. It’s much higher where I live and the values behind everything seem fucked up, and ideal American ones at least resemble French Enlightenment philosophies, even if you’ve really don’t have them in use, currently.

Oh oh oh, how like most Americans are religiously for circumcision, mostly because it would be annoying to think someone’s robbed them of sexual function by mutilating their genitals as a baby?

This is why I stopped playing ARC. Felt like it was just conditioning to prefer shooting-on-sight than being friendly. That or being a sociopath and lying and shooting someone in the back.

Neither of which are properties I like to even play pretend having.

You’re very correct in your comment, btw. Nowadays US uses methods that condition people so well that the shoot-to-kill amount of soldiers is like ~95%. In WWII (and everything preceding it) it was roughly 2% of men who were quite literally psychopaths (not in the criminal sense, but a sense of being able to turn off their empathy, many surgeons and ceos belong to this group of ppl). Only <25% of soldiers in a position to fire at the enemy actually shot at them. About 1% of US fighter pilots accounted for ~50% their kills.

Lindybeige has what I think is a fairly good video on the subject.

Shooting to kill - how many men can do it

Humanitarian law is also designed to protect civilian objects, including those indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. Article 29 of the Convention on the law relating to the non-navigational uses of international watercourses [available on http://www.un.org/], adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1997, stipulates:

“International watercourses and related installations, facilities and other works shall enjoy the protection accorded by the principles and rules of international law applicable in international and non-international armed conflict and shall not be used in violation of those principles and rules”.

General protection under the law applicable to armed conflicts extends to more than international watercourses, and the four main prohibitions laid down in that law are worth noting:

the ban on employing poison or poisonous weapons; the ban on destroying, confiscating or expropriating enemy property; the ban on destroying objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population; the ban on attacking works or installations containing dangerous forces.

The four prohibitions, to which should be added the provisions on environmental protection, are expressly mentioned in the instruments relating to international armed conflicts, and the last two are also laid down in the law applicable to non-international armed conflicts. Starvation as a method of warfare is explicitly prohibited regardless of the nature of the conflict, and the concept of objects essential for the survival of the civilian population includes drinking-water installations and supplies and irrigation works. Immunity for indispensable objects is waived only when these are used solely for the armed forces or in direct support of military action. Even then, the adversaries must refrain from any action which could reduce the population to starvation or deprive it of essential water.

https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/water-and-armed-conflicts

I’m not British. :)

They were busy hiding in their bunkers while real countries actually fought and died.

The US refused to enter the war for years because it was afraid.

You can’t help but project, can you?

Also, didn’t you guys lose to a bunch of ricefarmers with sticks and muskets?

also “found him annoying” is a weird euphemism for “stalking while committing multiple hate crimes and threatening” but that’s why L

No, it isn’t. Even if the guy was being a racist asshole, of which there’s no evidence, despite him having filmed the interaction, that doesn’t justify murder. Jesus, this is like talking to a toddler. No, you can’t stab a person to death because you didn’t like him when he was walking home from a bar.

What fkin stalking? Why are you making up shit?

And even if he did, that’s still not an immediate threat to his life that wouldn’t even non-lethal force, let alone lethal force, let alone stabbing him all over five fucking times.

You’re just a shitstirrer though. I don’t believe you’re actually that illiterate. Or American, tbh. No wörries, I like writing. Keep stirring.

Lol, that doesn’t even apply in the US. You’re always going on about this thing called “freedom of speech”.

Perhaps try educating yourself on what that means?

Please describe in the detail which one of the victims actions necessitated him being stabbed five times various locations?

The guy didn’t even use expressions that could be construed as “fighting words” and even if he did, that wouldn’t necessitate being stabbed over it. Wouldn’t hold up even in US court.

In the U.S., the general rule is that “[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another.”[1] In cases involving non-deadly force, this means that the person must reasonably believe that their use of force was necessary to prevent imminent, unlawful physical harm.[2] When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s infliction of great bodily harm or death.[3] Most states no longer require a person to retreat before using deadly force. In the minority of jurisdictions which do require retreat, there is no obligation to retreat when it is unsafe to do so or when one is inside one’s own home.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)#General_rule

So what was it, specifically?

Haha, American education strikes again.

Britain’s record since the 1700’s is at 63 victories, 11 defeats, and 10 inconclusive outcomes or stalemates.

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

(Also they guy stabbed the victim five times in the torso and legs because he found him annoying, not because he was defending himself.)

Fellas, is stabbing someone five times to kill them after they filmed you and you didn’t like what they were saying, “self-defense”?

On the evening of 3 December 2025, some time before 11:30 pm, Nowak (victim) was walking in the area of Belmont Road in the Portswood suburb of Southampton.He had been drinking at the Hobbit Pub but he was under the drink-drive limit.

Nowak then began filming Vickrum Digwa. Video recovered from Nowak’s phone captured him saying “Hello car” and singing to himself before yawning, while Digwa walked away from him. Nowak continued: “Innit bad man, what bad man. You’re a bad man, say you’re a bad man, go on.” Digwa, still walking away in the Snapchat video, replied: “I am a bad man” Digwa inflicted five “stab wounds or cuts” on Nowak, with the 21-centimetre (8.3 in) Kirpan, a Sikh ceremonial knife he was carrying, including a fatal wound to the chest and additional wounds to his legs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Henry_Nowak#Murder

In a backpack, yeah, I wouldn’t worry as someone from Northern Europe.

On my belt though? Again, I wouldn’t worry… if I’m not on public transport and instead hiking in the woods or on my way there with boots and whatnot.

Wearing Friday bests in public transport with a large knife on my belt? Yeah I expect it wouldn’t be too long for someone to contact the authorities. Especially if you were just hanging out in public, displaying it.

And by knife I mean something like this

No-one would be bothered about a Swiss Army tool in your pocket, though.

It all started when Eisenhower let Billy Graham in the White House because, " what can a little prayer breakfast hurt?"

Also, he changed the official national motto from “E Pluribus Unum” (out of many, one) to “In God We Trust”.

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

The first postage stamps with the motto appeared in 1954. A law passed in July 1955 by a joint resolution of the 84th Congress (Pub. L. 84–140) and approved by President Dwight Eisenhower requires that “In God We Trust” appear on all American currency.

Because Trump is Putlers lapdog obviously

Your correction has been corrected.

Lol no. You’re just angry I corrected you. “Nuh-uh, I’m actually right, also go and do your own research.”

I have. I’ve also been using the terms for like 30 years in several languages.

Addiction is a brain disorder. Even in common vernacular. Dependence is different. Usually with SUD they overlap, but for instance cannabis doesn’t cause dependency (because there’s really no physical withdrawal) which is why you hear a lot of addicted teenager weeders saying “weed isn’t addictive, man”, because they don’t understand the difference between those two words.

Just because they are using a word prescriptively wrong because they don’t understand what it means doesn’t make it wrong for them to use in that context, descriptively. And no, not everyone who knows the difference of “addiction” and “dependence” is speaking in ‘a medical context’. They’re really not that challenging as concepts.

Feel free to consult a dictionary for what “prescriptive” and “descriptive” mean. ;> Perhaps you should also check what “vernacular” means?

Out of literally any people ever, anywhere, how many do you think waited until they were 18-21 to start smoking? And how many do you think started when it was literally illegal for them to buy cigarettes?

exception was they should stay illegal what we should focus on is de-criminalization

Drug cartel propaganda

Legalise and regulate everything so the industry isn’t controlled by violent criminal organisations. Decriminalisation is their wet dream

Let the children smoke - Lindybeige rants

OK, so why exactly did prohibition fail? You ignored my question completely.

Because it led to increased use, increased abuse, and when black markets are owned by organised crime, insane crime rates. Society just simply couldn’t take the chaos prohibition was causing, so it got legalised.

Because when you take booze away from drinkers they get mad.

When you take weed away, weeders just get scared and go away to grow some more. Cocaine on the other hand? You’ve no idea how much the world would improve and how much drug abuse would be lowered if we simply had legal and regulated versions of everything. It’s the only way to regulate them and they exist anyway.

So either you’re a prude and pretend there’s a reason for prohibition and allow one of the largest industries in the world by trade to be controlled entirely by organised crime and all that follows with it… or you actually look at the facts and realise legalising is the only way to go.

I’ve had this discussion literally thousands of times over 20 years.

You assume prohibition lowers use. But you have absolutely no facts to back that up.

Where can I go to see a whole building of people smoking weed or taking drugs?

Any building in a poor area. Any prison nearby. Any pub as well. Just because people aren’t doing blow on the tables doesn’t mean that there isn’t at one coked up guy in every fucking bar on the planet. Just because you’re too ignorant to recognise recreational users doesn’t mean they’re not everywhere.

Are you even British? Not sure why you’d even care if you’re not.

Oh so in Britain social sciences and basic economics of the world just go out the window? It’s always “I don’t care” and getting upset because you realise there literally isn’t anything to back up your side and you’ve been on the side of incredibly silly lies for your entire life. I’ve had people spit in my face and go “You’re stupid! Stupid stupid stupid!” because they got so upset they couldn’t name a single actual reason why drug prohibition should exist.

I’m tired of writing up the very basics of the argument I’ve been having with “experts” like you for years so why don’t you read up on them yourself a bit. I hate being the “do your own research” guy, but yeah, please do.

Start here

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

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395924002573

https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-02/Justice - Post 1.pdf

Or as I know reading is boring listen to the last minute or two of this forner undercover police officer who infiltrated drug gangs talk about this:

https://youtu.be/y_TV4GuXFoA?t=702

He’s the author of “Good Cop, Bad War”, one of the most important voices for reform with his organisation Law Enforcement Action Partnership. They advocate for the full regulation of all drug markets to take control away from organised crime. He is, in fact, British. (Not that it matters.)

I’d suggest you look into it.

There really isn’t heavier irony available. I’ve literally, hand-to-heart, been studying about prohibitions of substances (and other things, like sexuality and religion etc but those are beside the point) through history for over 20 years, with heavy emphasis on the modernity, beginning with Egyptian cannabis bans (because the cotton farmers wanted an upper hand) and mostly just the modern war on drugs.

Your assumption has literally no merit. You claim fewer people will be smoking. Based on what? The famous history of prohibitions definitely working. That’s why no-one can use cannabis or cocaine anywhere in the world right?

Yeah, alcohol is easy to make. And growing weed is also easy. Just like growing tobacco is. Will it be worse quality and more dangerous? Yep. Will it still sell nonetheless, for exorbitant prices, as long as you make it even a remotely tobacco looking product? Yes.

We have data that loosening drug regulations leads to less abuse. Drug use isn’t the issue. Abuse is. Banning smoking in all working places and bars (smoking places outside are still a thing in most ofc) is a good thing. But that’s regulation, not prohibition.

Vicelaws don’t work and they’re harmful to society. It’s so ironic you’re telling me to read up on this when you can’t even understand the harms laws like these do since you just don’t believe in crime or science.

Your way of doing things, this rhetoric you’re going with, leads to a society like Singapore. The sane policies I’m talking about are more like Portugal’ s. (Just stronger)

It’s not vastly different. It’s gonna have the same exact issues.

They tried in NZ.

This will absolutely reduce the number of new smokers in the UK.

It will absolutely create a massive new black market. And think about how many nowadays start smoking before theyre legally allowed to buy cigarettes. Practically every single smoker there is. Kids smoke because “it’s cool”. It’s gonna be infinitely cooler when smokes are also illegal. And the Armenian fellow smuggling the ciggies in is not going to have qualms about selling cartons to teenagers.

Heavy regulation can work. Complete bans just don’t.