i was doing a maths course in uni once and the lecturer, who had probably had a stroke or maybe was developmentally disabled (it's important), was talking about matrix operations, and said "blabla associative blah" and this guy raises his hand and is all "is matrix multiplication commutative?"
son you know damn well it is not, furthermore he was like five seconds away from saying it wasn't
jesus
but yeah it's always hilarious when people pretend (i hope) to be baffled by the world's failure to follow their infallible spergeron logic regarding legalisation of drugs
"but teh alcolhols are dangerouuuus"
yeah that's a great argument for controlling it, not throwing more shit in the mix
DracuLax - when even Death can't scare the shit out of you
Dooey Jo wrote:i was doing a maths course in uni once and the lecturer, who had probably had a stroke or maybe was developmentally disabled (it's important), was talking about matrix operations, and said "blabla associative blah" and this guy raises his hand and is all "is matrix multiplication commutative?"
son you know damn well it is not, furthermore he was like five seconds away from saying it wasn't
jesus
but yeah it's always hilarious when people pretend (i hope) to be baffled by the world's failure to follow their infallible spergeron logic regarding legalisation of drugs
"but teh alcolhols are dangerouuuus"
yeah that's a great argument for controlling it, not throwing more shit in the mix
I'll probably regret saying this even, but way to completely miss the point of that argument.
Dooey Jo wrote:no that pretty much exactly addresses the point of that argument
No, it seriously doesn't. The argument you claim to be rebutting, is itself, a rebuttal to the anti-legalization argument 'drugs are dangerous, therefore they should be illegal' when it comes from someone who has no problem with alcohol being legal, which is often the case. It's obviously not meant as an argument to be used against someone who thinks alcohol should be banned too.
Also, most people I know who'd like to end the war on drugs have no problem with them being controlled. It only makes sense to make sure that you're not selling them to kids or letting people operate heavy machinery or whatever while impaired on any kind of mind altering substance. The problem with banning things like drugs or alcohol that it never works particularly well and it usually causes a lot more problems than it solves.
darthdavid wrote:Ok then, explain your logic then if I've missed your point ...
ask yourself what someone who believe that drugs are dangerous and should therefore be controlled, would think if you say "ya but the alcolols cause x million deaths every year"
hint: it is not "thank you for showing me the light you great debater"
DracuLax - when even Death can't scare the shit out of you
darthdavid wrote:Ok then, explain your logic then if I've missed your point ...
ask yourself what someone who believe that drugs are dangerous and should therefore be controlled, would think if you say "ya but the alcolols cause x million deaths every year"
hint: it is not "thank you for showing me the light you great debater"
wanting something legalized means it shouldn't be controlled? since when?
it's equally awesome how you latch onto that "OH you said 'controlled' in your exemplifying argument instead of 'illegalised' or whatever word i'm used to seeing!!" semantics
aw hell yeah, strawmen! now we're talking
throw some fallacies you've spotted in there too, it'll be rad
DracuLax - when even Death can't scare the shit out of you
If it's legalized, wouldn't it also be controlled in a manner similar to cigarettes and booze? I think we all know that corporations will jump at the chance to produce it for public consumption and make a lot of cash off it.
Dooey Jo wrote:it's equally awesome how you latch onto that "OH you said 'controlled' instead of 'illegalised' or whatever word i'm used to seeing!!" semantics
aw hell yeah, strawmen! now we're talking
throw some fallacies you've spotted in there too, it'll be rad
you could try not being a shithead for once but that might be too much to ask
i mean who needs to actually argue points when we can just scream at each other
the "point" that by saying such and such is going to look like an argument for something else, i'm "missing the point"?
the "point" by restating the original argument, the specifics of which i never even claimed to care about?
the "point" that by "not controlled" you think i mean "completely unregulated"?
those are all great points by great minds zod, i love semantics whoring too. maybe you can pick this post apart by the sentence and then the failure will be complete
DracuLax - when even Death can't scare the shit out of you
Dooey Jo wrote:the "point" that by saying such and such is going to look like an argument for something else, i'm "missing the point"?
the "point" by restating the original argument, the specifics of which i never even claimed to care about?
the "point" that by "not controlled" you think i mean "completely unregulated"?
those are all great points by great minds zod, i love semantics whoring too. maybe you can pick this post apart by the sentence and then the failure will be complete
turns out words actually mean things
or do you expect people to magically divine your intent over the internet
literally every time i see "well alcohol is more dangerous" i think something along the lines of "yeah and the 21st amendment was america's biggest mistake ever"
literally every time i see "well alcohol is more dangerous" i think something along the lines of "yeah and the 21st amendment was america's biggest mistake ever"
the problem is nobody ever presents a compelling reason to keep marijuana in the same category as heroin
literally every time i see "well alcohol is more dangerous" i think something along the lines of "yeah and the 21st amendment was america's biggest mistake ever"
well to be fair i can see both sides of the argument (lol golden mean!!!!)
eg marijuana's probably the least dangerous narcotic physiologically and a lot of attitudes towards illegal narcotics are built around social and to an extent racial prejudices
but that doesn't necessarily justify a blanket end to efforts to combat addiction and abuse of things like coke, heroin, meth, etc. or, for that matter, tolerating an increase in the number of people who use narcotics recreationally
i guess everybody can agree that the War on Drugs is dumb as hell though
i haven't even made an argument either way, unless you think "this argument is dumb" is automatically an argument in favour of the opposite position held by the responsible debater, in which case i cannot help you
Zod wrote:or do you expect people to magically divine your intent over the internet
i expect people on the internet to magically read the worst possible things into my words, yes
DracuLax - when even Death can't scare the shit out of you