Silk Road forums

Discussion => Silk Road discussion => Topic started by: lolwut101 on January 28, 2012, 11:28 am

Title: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: lolwut101 on January 28, 2012, 11:28 am
I first posted this under the topic posted by the Silk Road admin, but with all the "Haters we gon shoot you PRO GUNS YEAH" vs "GUNS CROSS THE LINE no way" threads I see cropping up, I figured hell, why not just post this to it's own thread. As I'll explain, there are arguments and defenses on both sides of this argument that are very, very valid points worthy of discussion. But (again, I go on in great detail about this later), absolutely nothing will be accomplished if we continue to blindly and, quite honestly, stupidly spew mindless hate towards each other while circle-jerking our self-righteous allies. Some of the things people have said tonight alone have seriously made me doubt that we're pretty much all mature and sensible enough to leave 4chan antics in 4chan, and keep what was otherwise the extremely helpful and sensible silk road behavior in silk road.


I do hope that what I say more or less mirrors what some of you guys are feeling about this whole issue...and like I will repeat later on, feel absolutely free to agree or disagree with whatever I say. But for the love of god, please try not to stoop down to the "I DON'T AGREE WITH ______ BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT AND I'LL ALWAYS BE RIGHT ABOUT THIS AND YOU'RE DUMB AND I'M FLAWLESSLY RIGHT"....once this shit starts, then we might as well give up hope of ever coming to any sort of agreement that will piss off the least amount of people. The longer this bullshit keeps up, the less Silk Road is probably going to pay any attention to what anyone wants, and instead will make a decision based on what is estimated to be the most beneficial to the site. And honestly, with this level of absolutely childish bullshit, I would not blame Silk Road in the slightest.


But here is the whole thing:


While I stumbled upon silk road quite some time before the original Gawker article, if it wasn't for that very article I probably wouldn't have taken the initiative to figure out how everything works and actually join (at least, definitely not when I did). So for that little push in incentive, I thank Gawker.



However, now that I'm pretty well-versed in the ins and outs of silk road, and now that I've placed many, many orders and only use sr for all of my little drug desires, I cringed and almost couldn't read the entirety of this new article. While I don't really think the publishing of this article and silk road going down today was anything but a really unfortunate and really poorly timed coincidence, the article is bound to bring at least some unnecessary and unwarranted scrutiny and press. Since I've been a buyer, I've always firmly stated that, since this market is so much smaller and much less responsible for violence than the various cartels/drug empires around the world, and since there is a pretty decent amount of security and anonymity on this site, the federal government simply won't designate the resources it would need to fully crack down on silk road and totally kill the site. Even with this most recent article (drugs are bad enough, but now people can buy GUNS online!? THINK OF THE CHILDREN) might provoke a more serious interest in silk road in the people who eventually forgot about the summers' article, I just don't think that the feds will really crack down. I mean, they might step up scanning packages and letters to try and curtail traffic, but (and I risk sounding cocky here) for every package the government intercepts, the vendors learn far too quickly how to avoid detection again than the gov't can keep up with.


Now I could be TOTALLY off here, but the way I see it is that the federal governments' attitude towards silk road is that if a vendor and/or buyer makes a careless mistake which basically screams "I buy/sell drugs! Look at how I use the USPS as my personal drug courier!", then they'll step in and put some form of pressure on the buyer/vendor. And, of course, if an illicit substance is detected when it comes across the border, they'll confiscate it, and possibly place a "double check this guy's mail" warning on the buyers deliveries. However, unless the vendor is selling massive amounts of drugs in huge quantities, or the buyer is buying massive amounts of drugs in huge quantities, the fact that a large amount of orders are of comparitively unimportant amounts (vs. the unbelievable volume of the same drugs that cross the mexican/american boarder each day, for example) makes it so that if the government tried to seriously crack down, it would wind up costing them a ridiculous amount of money. Add this to what I stated earlier about how the vendors and buyers consistently learn from the (far and few between) mistakes that are bound to happen eventually and implement newer and more discreet tactics, and it just makes it seem like, at the end of the day, silk road is just simply not worth the time, money and effort.


Personally, I don't have any ethical or moral issue with private ownership of fire arms. I've shot guns at a range before, and it can be damn fun. I would even go so far as to say that the rush from firing a 12 gauge shotgun or a .50 cal revolver at a target or at skeet rivals and in some cases surpasses the rush from some of the drugs I've taken. Politically, I consider myself to be more or less "liberal", but I'm also a die-hard supporter of the protection of our constitutional rights (I'm specifically talking about the United States constitution, so I'm sorry for those of you who aren't US citizens if this doesn't really ring any bells), and unlike many of the hypocritical "democrats" I know personally and in office who spout off the significance of civil liberties, but when the 2nd amendment comes up suddenly become vehement supporters of restrictions and, if some had their way, total illegality, I feel just as strongly about the right to bear arms as I do about the right to free speech and the right to protection against self-incrimination. I'm not trying to turn this in to a political discussion (because god knows that if I was we might as well kiss any sense of order and structure that this thread has goodbye)...but rather I'm giving background to my stance on this Guns vs. No Guns issue.

On one hand, the introduction of guns on the silk road marketplace inevitably brings with it another level of hatred. It's bad enough that the drugs bring with them a viciously negative stigma from people who will never cease to let go of their indoctrinated hatred towards anything deemed an "illegal drug"...but adding on to that the hatred and attention of the rather large number of hypocritical democratic politicians and over-protective, ill-informed stay-at-home suburban moms is just an honestly really unwise decision. Sure, you could probably make a pretty hefty sum of cash by selling guns on here. And sure, if the federal government gets enough complaints and decides to actually step in and shut down silk road for good and you are able to cash out before everything goes to shit, you could at least have an extra amount of money. But, for people like me, the longer this site remains active, and the longer we're able to avoid the full force of the Law, the better for all of us. For those like me, this site isn't about making money, it's about establishing what is basically the first real attempt at a drug trade that is set up like a legitimate business as opposed to a violent, prone-to-breaking-its-rules drug empire. The whole system of user reviews, escrow and anonymity, combined with the fact that I know if I order MDMA from DrAmsterdam, I will get nothing more than MDMA (vs on the street where I'll most likely wind up with some combination of amphetamines, caffeine, an MDMA analogue with no research and no one knows what it actually does) has very quickly led to me only buying drugs from here. The last time I actually physically went out and bought drugs from some street-vendor was so long ago that I honestly don't remember when. Although the addition of guns adds another level of scrutiny, it is by no means going to bring about the total end of silk road. It might contribute to this, but no one will ever be able to look back and say "Silk road was fine and it was never going to be shut down until those damn gun heads came to the scene" if they are really any smart at all. If the government doesn't shut down silk road, either the (highly unlikely) total legality of all drugs will, or the appearance of a newer, more secure, more stable market or markets will. The fact that the addition of guns will most likely not spell the end for silk road leads to my other viewpoint on this whole thing.

On the other hand, stemming from my complete support of private gun ownership, and due to the fact that you can already buy not only a vast majority of illegal drugs, but also porn, games, software, paraphernalia, banned books, and tutorials and equipment needed to make drugs on silk road....I don't really see the addition of a substantial "Guns" section to really be that out of place. In the public's eye, whenever guns and drugs are mentioned in the same sentence, even the same paragraph, the immediate reaction is fear and crying for the government to step in and get rid of these "gangsters". However, just as the silk road marketplace differs from the cartels in the drug trade by having a unique system which makes it operate like a legitimate and well-renowned business, I don't really think that all of a sudden just because vendors now offer guns all sense of order and legitimate business go flying out the window. Like the vendor stated in the Gawker article, he would do everything he could to ensure that the people he was selling the guns to had no intentions of using them for violence or were mentally/emotionally unstable in any way. Now of course, any vendor could say that they operate by those rules, but in reality don't care in the slightest who they're doing business with, which is the only real big and difficult to solve flaw I find in the pro-gun side. But, if this was somehow dealt with and the Guns were here to stay, the vendors would fall in line with the established system/guidelines extremely quickly. Another concern that could be brought up is the issue with why anyone might want to purchase a gun illegally rather than go through the legal process. To that, I'd say it wholly depends on where the person is located and subsequently how restrictive their government is. One thing that the vendor in the Gawker article pointed out that I found to be a very reasonable, if not totally logical, argument was how he saw himself as providing the means for the civilians of any country to procure an instrument to defend themselves as per their right to do so. As an American, I'm lucky enough to not really know what it's like to not be able to go out and purchase my own personal fire arm without too much difficulty. However, in other countries, the civilians are either extremely restricted, or outright cannot own fire arms. While the Vendor from the article said something about "citizens protecting themselves against overbearing governments", and while I do consider that a very important part to maintaining a free and non-repressive society, the most immediate and probably biggest concern is the fact that, despite gun ownership being illegal, criminals are going to procure fire arms regardless, while the citizens are forced to rely on the effectiveness of law enforcement. If you were to ask me, if someone with a gun broke in to my house, I would grab MY gun, call the police, then defend myself if needed. Personally, as an American, I just wouldn't find the benefits of purchasing a gun from a silk road vendor to really outweigh the risks of what would happen if I was caught with an illegally owned firearm. When I turn 21, I fully intend on purchasing a hand gun, and applying for a concealed-carry permit. There's no way in hell I'm going to let some low-life junky get away with my wallet/possessions while I wait helplessly at their mercy for the police to show up. If someone tries to take my things and pulls a gun out on me, you absolutely bet that I will not hesitate to make them know that they're not the only ones with a fire arm. And of course, like I said, guns are just really, really fun when handled properly and intelligently. Plus, it's another whole new market to attract vendors and buyers...and from there, some vendors might start adopting other products when they see how diverse the playing field is. And some buyers may see something in another market that piques their interest, leading to a growth in the number of buyers in total, and subsequently leading to some vendors increasing their earnings.


Sorry about the depth and length of this message, but I just felt like it wouldn't hurt to express my personal opinion on this issue. And from what I've seen, this could be a very decisive point in Silk Road's history. I hope that something that I brought up rings true to anyone's feelings on this matter...but even if there are things with which you disagree, the only way we're going to be able to come to any sort of more-or-less majority supported decision is if we come together and try to find some sort of middle ground. If we continue to totally disagree with each other and no one on either side tries to see the other side's arguments in any accepting and understanding way, then this fight could potentially cause a very damaging rift in the community. I like to think of this community as a group of very intelligent, very rational and very realistic people who aren't completely blinded by their personal beliefs and self-righteous hatred of those of opposite or different beliefs. I like to think that we all want to see Silk Road continue to be as reliable and professionally-run as it is, and hopefully improve to levels we can't imagine in the future. I'd like to think that the people on both sides of this argument are more than capable of recognizing their emotional reasons for what they believe, but can leave these irrational feelings behind and come together and acknowledge what the other side believes and why. And hopefully, I believe that we will be able to come to a final decision which pleases as many people as possible, while alienating as few as possible. Maybe when some of us go on 4chan, or reddit, or somethingawful, or whatever forum, we'll engage in and/or spark flame wars...but on Silk Road, I really think we need to leave the flame wars to the surface web. It is pretty much an unwritten rule of the internet that, no matter how good or how well thought out your argument might be, there is no possible way to "win" an online argument.


Just my 2 cents....or more like 200 pages. But I really don't want to see silk road torn apart from the inside because no one remembered to leave the flame-war attitude back on the surface web. There's still so much potential for silk road...and the last thing I'd want is for all of it to be wasted along with the single most reliable and professionally run drug business I have ever dealt with. Come on, guys. Let's not overlook just how ridiculously lucky we are to have this service at our fingertips. We would be utterly foolish if we let this go to waste.

Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: Julio on January 28, 2012, 03:44 pm
I personally have nothing against guns; I own a couple. Not because I fear the government but for hunting and personal protection. My only true rationale for not wanting guns on here is that guns are the realm of the ATF, anyone who has ever dealt with them knows they don't fuck around. They will drive a tank into your compound and burn that shit to the ground. We already know they will sell guns and let them go to see where they end up and how they are used. Drugs are practically untraceable, if someone ods from something on here then they could have gotten it elsewhere. If someone gets killed from a gun on here then SR can be directly linked.
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: prsnnknwn on January 28, 2012, 04:58 pm
Yo lolwut101, or should I said Brother!

I can say one thing, I had said real rare in my life - I could not put that in words better myself. Funny shit - its some underground drugforum where I have red (? not sure about correct form of "to read" as english is not my native language) some of most meaningful and true things I have came (again sorry for probable flaws) upon in my life.
But to the point - on the one hand I really like to have my pocket online dealer thingie for me and only me - no publicity, no guns, no endangerement (?).  On the other hand I dig idea of agorism and freemarket. Really, it is for us - the People - to stand for something, because Law and Those Who Wrote Law have all they ever wanted and I have not heard any explanations about Their ideas about world of tomorrow.
I will not indulge (is that correct term for "I don't want to engage in endless discussion about morality, ethics and all that other stuff, that separates us from each other and makes us all unique and therefore has no any sensible resolution at all"?)  into this pro/anti stuff, because I think core of all that disputes lies in one simple question, and that question is: "Is Silk Road strong enough to survive on its own?"
What I see is bunch of Mums (I don't want to endanger my only and loved baby with bringing potential sources of problems here) and Dads (its a boy, boys do stupid shit all the time).
I say fuck it. There can not be bans for anything, except products for whom to exist there has to be done crime against fellow human being so that product could appear. Majority at this point will think CP, but there are also thing like Snuff, organ trade, slave trade and so on. Those things may be seen as too far fetched, but think about this way - If Silk Road is strong enough, that it can handle drugs AND guns, then there will be some very serious powers just around the corner. If Silk Road will not go away, then those things will come to Silk Road, its innevitable.
But if Silk Road will go down just because of some inventions which are here to fulfill one of most basic huMAN needs, then it is worth as much as your average street crack dealer.

Once again, I really do apologise about my english, but still hope my message is clear.
And lolwut101 seriously, I was reading all that polemic from all sides and thinking, nah, I do not want to engage in this shit, but that one post and this one was reason because I decided to act as part of community, I feel I am. Respect!


Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: Habitat on January 28, 2012, 06:27 pm
drugs are bad enough, but now people can buy GUNS online!? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111






haha. JK. But seriously, I totally agree with literally everything you said. But ultimately, it will be left up to the creators and admins to decide in the end what to do about the whole pro gun/anti gun issue - all we can do is either bitch or intelligently debate each other - and wait to see what happens. 
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: cacoethes on January 28, 2012, 07:40 pm
Great thread, man, I completely agree.

 I wish the discussion on this topic appearing in other threads would remain as civil and as objective.  Seem like it always degrades into emotionally charged rhetoric filled with ad hominem attacks.
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: BenJesuit on January 28, 2012, 07:47 pm
Well written. Impressive.

The argument of those who don't want guns sold here comes down to one or both of these two things.

1. Fear that it will hasten the demise of Silk road.

2. Having a sensibility that opposes firearms in general.

Those two things will unfortunately disallow common ground or even sensible discussion between the camps.  They are rather than positions from reason, positions based on emotion. It's almost religious in nature since there has yet to be any substantiation of the fear. It is simply fear.

The owners of SR will likely ignore the anti-gun crowd because of three reasons.

1. They are most interested in sticking with the true ideology of SR which is to have a free market where only sales dictate what can and cannot be sold.

2. They know they can do it without regard to individual sensibilities. Even those who threaten to leave over the issue will be back because they are after all addicts* and because it is hard to beat SR. (*an addict with some semblence of self control is still an addict.)

3. They have worked out a comprehensive plan that takes into account stepped up LE action.

The debates will die down as posters realize that there is nothing they can do about it. Just as debate died down after the "state of Silk Road address" when they realized there is nothing they can do about it except accept it and adapt.

People are so afraid of losing what is arguably the best source for drugs anywhere, that they show little faith in the owners of SR who also don't want to see SR go.
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: LexusMiles on January 28, 2012, 08:03 pm
absolutely nothing will be accomplished if we continue to blindly and, quite honestly, stupidly spew mindless hate towards each other while circle-jerking our self-righteous allies. Some of the things people have said tonight alone have seriously made me doubt that we're pretty much all mature and sensible enough to leave 4chan antics in 4chan

Excellent post lolwut101. I didn't read *all* of it yet, but your opening paragraph says it. Without addressing the above issue, the forums are effectively a breeding ground for raw nerves, hate, and basic degeneration of the overall atmosphere. Nothing you or I can say will likely be enough to affect wide-spread change.

The solution as I see it? Ideally, a reddit up/down vote style forum. Not going to happen, so alternatively the the solution might have to be something such as a heavier moderation presence. A peace keeping, thread deleting,  mod team who have their mission statement defined.

Education, logic, and reason - these simply aren't enough to affect the change you/we are looking for. I would so <3 to know all proposed solutions, not saying I thought of the *best*, but they are the best I can think of.

Now.. to read some more of your original post....
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: ianfleming on January 28, 2012, 08:15 pm
Why dont we split them, so that Silk Road is strictly for drugs
And then have a separate tor site for guns and stuff (complete with it's own forums)
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: jewfro on January 28, 2012, 08:51 pm
Why dont we split them, so that Silk Road is strictly for drugs
And then have a separate tor site for guns and stuff (complete with it's own forums)

yes plz
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: LexusMiles on January 28, 2012, 09:37 pm
Regards to guns.

If people here want to formulate an argument for / against, then there is one basic premise. Democracy is not here. SR is the man, and SR has proposed  the mission statement for us all to see: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=8397.0

The argument you want to formulate should ideally address the mission statement of SR. If you do this then you are speaking in the language that SR can appreciate.

I've quoted the relevant lines right here:

Quote
[...] Silk Road was never meant to be private and exclusive.  It is meant to grow into a force to be reckoned with that can challenge the powers that be and at last give people the option to choose freedom over tyranny [...]

we've had two major challenges to face as Silk Road grows and evolves.  One is making our systems tough enough and flexible enough to withstand and win a cyber-war with the most powerful organizations in the world, should they choose to start that war.  This is always and ever a top priority.  The other is making the market a place where people can quickly and easily buy and sell just about anything without worrying about being attacked by gun toting men in uniforms and thrown in a cage or worry about being ripped off by their trading partner.

For the members who are *against* guns on SR, your argument is this:

"...give people the option to choose freedom over tyranny..." Do gun sales on SR promote freedom or tyranny? You will argue that they promote tyranny. This is a weak argument though, so best leave it.

"..making our systems tough enough and flexible enough to withstand and win a cyber-war with the most powerful organizations in the world, should they choose to start that war..." Do guns make a cyberwar far more likely? You will argue for the affirmative, yes they do. This is a strong argument. Use it.

"...making the market a place where people can quickly and easily buy and sell just about anything without worrying about being attacked by gun toting men..." Does having guns on SR increase or decrease the number of gun toting men who can attack us? You will argue that this increases the number of gun toting men who can attack us.


^ these are the arguments most relevant to the mission statement of SR. Since SR is no democracy, then its best to stop the in-fighting with each other, and take your case directly to SR. Yes, use a PM if you must. If SR gets enough of your message, then I don't doubt that SR may address the issue directly and the arguments can cease for at least the next short while.

Peace to all, and as always, <3 to the site.
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: happyroller1234 on January 28, 2012, 10:00 pm
I think we also fail to remember the types of people who undoubtedly use SR.  Not everyone on these boards is a functional person who enjoys using drugs recreationally.  I'm sure there are people on here who are really fucked up and deep into harrowing addictions.  Do we really want to provide tweaked out meth heads with aggressive tendencies with guns?  What about someone who's on a MDPV binge and buys a gun?  This is just all such a bad idea.
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: BenJesuit on January 29, 2012, 12:05 am
@LexusMiles

Excellent.

Most come here unaware of what it's really all about. To many, it's all about drugs. And they are now scared to death that it will be taken away from them having no confidence in the owner of Silk Road.

There is no reasoning with the fearful. And that's understandable.  Come to think of it, sales might increase as some try to stock up on drugs out of fear that SR is going away.

It's too bad that your post along with posts of similar vein will go unnoticed or unconsidered. Not that it ultimately matters since there's nothing people can do about what's going on. It's not like they are going to leave.
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: LexusMiles on January 29, 2012, 02:18 am
Thanks man. Knowing that someone, or anyone agrees is satisfying enough. Of all the threads I liked this one, because the OP sets the platform nicely :]

Easy to get in and say whatever. Now, back into the shadows I sneak....
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: theradblur on January 29, 2012, 06:03 am
I agree that people need to be civil with these arguments or we are not going to get any where. People need to calm down and think before they type. I will copy&paste something I wrote in another thread that I want answered:

"Okay first of all, jewfro, writing in CAPS LOCK won't get your point across any better and it makes you look like a fool. Especially all the uncalled for name-calling. Come on dude, grow the fuck up. You sound like a prepubescent teenager about to have an aneurism.

Second, I'm all for the gun trade. I live in America and even though I don't own any firearms at the moment, I do believe in our constitutional right to bear arms. With that said, I am still deciding whether SR should allow the gun trade in their market place.

I am on the fence because all I see right now in both arguments are speculations. The side that doesn't want guns in the marketplace CLAIM (claim is important) that it will draw further attention to SR and ultimately they are SPECULATING that it will shut down SR due to increased effort from the Government to shut us down.

The side that says they want guns on SR believe this because they believe that SR should not be just a marketplace, but a symbol. This place is a small revolution in the technology age we now live in and they think SR shouldn't shy away from their oppressors and instead fight back. If guns will make the Government more weary of us, then good! Let them cower in fear from SR. The people that support guns on SR think SR can withhold from the attacks from the government and stay alive to flourish into this ideal symbol of a free market.

My question to you, ALL OF YOU, is that does having the gun trade on SR really make us more vulnerable? Will it be our demise if we continue to sell firearms? Where is the proof? Can SR withstand the attacks from the government if they choose to go all out on SR?

If SR is more vulnerable from the firearms and it will be our demise, and if taking guns out of the marketplace keep this place alive longer then I am all for abolishing firearms. At least until SR improves its defenses from attacks.  So please, can someone answer my questions? "
 
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Feud, and Silk Road itself
Post by: jewfro on January 29, 2012, 06:10 pm
b-but typing in caps makes it seem like im more correct, due to the sheer size of the letters! :(

kidding, but all right, fine. it's a bad habit, i should probably avoid it...

i suppose it's mostly paranoia, i mean - when i saw the first gawker article and the wired one, a chill ran down my spine as i thought "oh fuck, now the heat's fucking ON." but then when i saw the second one, i nearly fucking crapped myself. yes - the transgressions being perpetrated here are highly illegal already, but more heat is more heat.

looking at it in a [shitty] metaphorical way: if you rob a bank, cops catch you - you're fucked. if you rob a bank, kill people, burn down some buildings, maybe blow up a car or two and then the popo clutch your sack - you are fucked so many ways to sunday, you won't know what your name is.

i think my main concern with the whole issue was this:

1) SR was down and unresponsive
2) i went on the forums to see that this was an across-the-board issue
3) i saw that goddamn gawker article
4) SR was still down
5) i REALLYS REALLYS REALLYS needs my drugs
6) paranoia's not so much a personality defect, as it is a hobby of mine.

like IDGAF one way or another, really, as long as my "avenues of propagating my addiction are open".

ummm. and someone lambasted my use of filler words such as "umm" in forum posts, which i wholeheartedly enjoy doing IRL, and more so in written form. off-topic, but whatever
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: dazzlewazzle on January 30, 2012, 03:04 am
@LexusMiles

Excellent.


+1 LexusMiles


Just read the new article on Gawker and am honestly dismayed and the picture of SR they're painting for general public.
Quote from: Gawker
"When I posted a request to speak to anyone who'd purchased guns on Silk Road, it was almost immediately deleted"

Actually happened to see this thread he mentions and post in it before it was removed. I can understand the reasons behind it's deletion, but can't help thinking that they may have presented a more moderate article if they had a chance to converse with SR users. Or perhaps I'm just being optimistic, they could have pumped us all for as much info as we'd give them, then continue to right a sensationalist troll piece, singling out individual sellers for no reason other than to increase their own hit counts.
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: guns4europe on January 30, 2012, 03:18 am
The first Gawker article about drugs brought heat too but did I hear anyone scream "Drugs bring heat to Silk Road! Ban them!"? No, bunch of lying hypocrites with your double standards.
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: iloveweed on January 30, 2012, 03:20 am
This man has a point, even though I like drugs myself.
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: LexusMiles on January 30, 2012, 03:35 am
The first Gawker article about drugs brought heat too but did I hear anyone scream "Drugs bring heat to Silk Road! Ban them!"? No, bunch of lying hypocrites with your double standards.

This man has a point, even though I like drugs myself.


Despite being rather impartial on the debate itself, I still have some interest in seeing it resolved.

I agree he does have a plausible point. Its best now to turn to the litterature, news, and policies of law -- to actually investigate the war on drugs vs the war on guns.

In the USA is the war on drugs, or the war on guns more heavily backed and enforced by law? (Its time now to cite evidence, not guess).

Which crimes tend to carrier heftier penalties, gun deal vs drug dealing? Gun buying vs drug buying?

If you all look into this with some objectivity, then the argument ceases to be based on emotion and opinion and it starts to be based on evidence and statistics. It doesn't mean the emotion goes away, but it does take the back seat. For the the decision makers at SR, the argument becomes much more clear and appreciable.
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: guns4europe on January 30, 2012, 03:42 am
I agree, I think in a few weeks all will have calmed down again and that it is more emotion as fact based
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: lilith2u on January 30, 2012, 04:07 am
I agree with ianfleming's post, why not have separate roads? one for drugs, one for dope! i wish it was under consideration. besides if you live in the U.S you can get one on almost every street corner? why come here for it? more heat than we need that's for sure!.....long live SR
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: dazzlewazzle on January 30, 2012, 04:17 am
Forum hijacking in progress... Great! Thanks heaps to "fuckyoualldrugaddicts"  wanker! :(
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: LexusMiles on January 30, 2012, 04:26 am
Forum hijacking in progress... Great! Thanks heaps to "fuckyoualldrugaddicts"  wanker! :(

If you consider troll / spam to be a problem, visit here:  http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=10119.0

The link takes you to:   
Silk Road forums » Technical » Feature requests » FORUM: Newbie subforum [Jail or Initiation Station]

Have your say there -- you can vote it up or make a suggestion.



Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: BenJesuit on January 30, 2012, 04:57 am


Just read the new article on Gawker and am honestly dismayed and the picture of SR they're painting for general public.
Quote from: Gawker
"When I posted a request to speak to anyone who'd purchased guns on Silk Road, it was almost immediately deleted"

Actually happened to see this thread he mentions and post in it before it was removed. I can understand the reasons behind it's deletion, but can't help thinking that they may have presented a more moderate article if they had a chance to converse with SR users. Or perhaps I'm just being optimistic, they could have pumped us all for as much info as we'd give them, then continue to right a sensationalist troll piece, singling out individual sellers for no reason other than to increase their own hit counts.

I had the exact same thoughts. I, like you, saw and posted in that thread. Didn't think it was wise to delete the thread. At the most, perhaps lock it. That sort of censorship gives the wrong impression and sends a totalitarian message.

Anyway, it's water under the bridge.
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: kuwahara on January 30, 2012, 01:01 pm
to the OP - well done on an informed and sensible opening post.

I am in the "would rather not see guns on SR" camp, and have posted why in other threads.  Though I do see both sides of the debate - although I find it rather offensive that I am labelled a hypocrite for saying I want to buy drugs but ban guns....I am not, it is my view and the fact that SR says no to other items means I am clearly not a hypocrite for somehow fighting against the "free market" as this is not one and I am glad of that.

I am guessing you are from USA, or a country where guns are more common though. I apologise if I am making incorrect assumptions, which I probably am if you are buying from Amsterdam!! All I will say is that the furore it will cause in western Europe will mobilise their governments to action and I really do believe it will spell the end for SR.

I work in an industry that is very close to National Security (I have EDITED out what area that is from my original post) and believe me - this place can be taken down - it just needs the media spotlight to justify the financial spend - that could only a few months away in Europe.
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: LexusMiles on January 30, 2012, 10:28 pm
to the OP - well done on an informed and sensible opening post.

I am in the "would rather not see guns on SR" camp, and have posted why in other threads.  Though I do see both sides of the debate - although I find it rather offensive that I am labelled a hypocrite for saying I want to buy drugs but ban guns....I am not, it is my view and the fact that SR says no to other items means I am clearly not a hypocrite for somehow fighting against the "free market" as this is not one and I am glad of that.

I am guessing you are from USA, or a country where guns are more common though. I apologise if I am making incorrect assumptions, which I probably am if you are buying from Amsterdam!! All I will say is that the furore it will cause in western Europe will mobilise their governments to action and I really do believe it will spell the end for SR.

I work in an industry that is very close to National Security (I have EDITED out what area that is from my original post) and believe me - this place can be taken down - it just needs the media spotlight to justify the financial spend - that could only a few months away in Europe.

Europe: war on drugs vs war on drugs.

Possible to cite some sources to show people that one is clearly more threatening than another? Maybe the penalties for dealing drugs vs dealing guns.

Actually I do believe what you are saying but the argument can never transcend past 'circle-jerk' or 'in my opinion' unless we begin to cite some resources (articles, law, news, whatever) which shows the evidence behind the popular opinion......

 
Title: Re: Regarding the Gawker article, the Pro/Anti Guns Fued, and Silk Road itself
Post by: lolwut101 on January 31, 2012, 06:24 am
Wow...While I did put a LOT of effort in to this post, I seriously never expected to get a serious conversation going. Looks like you guys restored some hope in me after all ;P

But I will say, everyone so far has made some really, really excellent points. I'm just glad that we're able to openly discuss this without resorting to a flamewar. I want to give a special shout out to LexusMiles. So far, you're easily the most well-thought out and most rational poster I've seen about all of this. Thanks for contributing, I really appreciate your input. Also, your post where you describe which argument is strong for which reason is, I think, extremely valuable. I think everyone who wants to post for one side or another should read your post before doing anything.

To Kuwahara: First off, thanks for not jumping to attacking me and for saying what you said in a very calm, reasonable manner. Just so you don't feel like you're wrongly accusing me of anything - yes, I am American. I am interested in the fact that you're supposedly up there in some National Security agency. If, as you claim, the tools to completely dismantle SR exist and can be easily put in to action...well then that changes the whole game. My only question would be why has no one used these tools yet? Also, I apologize if I did offend you by saying what I said about hypocrisy. It's just a thought I had when making my original post, and on reviewing what I said, I could easily see how it's a bit misleading. I don't mean to say that you're a hypocrite for wanting guns banned. Rather, I meant that it is hypocritical for people to vehemently attack guns in an uneducated and irrational way. I hope that makes sense...I'm really tired and my brain is not quite working right :P. Most importantly -- Thank you for your input, and thank you for being reasonable.


Also, another special shout out to BenJesuit. Your breakdown of the reasoning behind the arguments really hit the nail on the head, at least in my mind.


I agree with the general sentiment that, at the end of the day, the best option to take would be one that prevents the total dismantling of SR.

Thanks again, guys. Hopefully people start paying more attention to what's really important, instead of trying to make each other as angry as possible.