Godammed SDN
- Nietzslime
- Give these people air!
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:57 am
Re: Godammed SDN
one thing i absolutely cannot stand is people smugly asking questions they clearly know the answer to
whether it's 'why was ecstasy made illegal i mean cigarettes and booze are clearly worse '
or 'why is richard coeur-de-lion so beloved by england after all all he did was kill a bunch of muslims '
it universally just makes you look like a twat
whether it's 'why was ecstasy made illegal i mean cigarettes and booze are clearly worse '
or 'why is richard coeur-de-lion so beloved by england after all all he did was kill a bunch of muslims '
it universally just makes you look like a twat
Europe: Genocide-free since at least 1996.
Re: Godammed SDN
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
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
- darthdavid
- Syrup
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:56 am
Re: Godammed SDN
I'll probably regret saying this even, but way to completely miss the point of that argument.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
Re: Godammed SDN
no that pretty much exactly addresses the point of that argument
DracuLax - when even Death can't scare the shit out of you
- darthdavid
- Syrup
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:56 am
Re: Godammed SDN
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.Dooey Jo wrote:no that pretty much exactly addresses the point of that argument
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.
Re: Godammed SDN
son
it is in fact you who completely miss the point
it is in fact you who completely miss the point
DracuLax - when even Death can't scare the shit out of you
- uraniun235
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:54 am
Re: Godammed SDN
guys if you're going to have a lame argument please take it to the lame arguments forum so that we can laugh at you from here okay
- darthdavid
- Syrup
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:56 am
Re: Godammed SDN
Ok then, explain your logic then if I've missed your point ...Dooey Jo wrote:son
it is in fact you who completely miss the point
B-b-b-but... someone is wrong on the internet!uraniun235 wrote:guys if you're going to have a lame argument please take it to the lame arguments forum so that we can laugh at you from here okay
- Nietzslime
- Give these people air!
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:57 am
Re: Godammed SDN
darthdavid has no idea what he's talking about but dooey jo is on the wrong side of the issue
case dismissed
case dismissed
Europe: Genocide-free since at least 1996.
Re: Godammed SDN
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"darthdavid wrote:Ok then, explain your logic then if I've missed your point ...
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
Re: Godammed SDN
wanting something legalized means it shouldn't be controlled? since when?Dooey Jo wrote: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"darthdavid wrote:Ok then, explain your logic then if I've missed your point ...
hint: it is not "thank you for showing me the light you great debater"
Re: Godammed SDN
since the definition of "controlled substance"? unless of course you mean "legalised" like prescription drugs, which no one ever does
DracuLax - when even Death can't scare the shit out of you
Re: Godammed SDN
someone needs to re-read the definition of a controlled substance againDooey Jo wrote:since the definition of "controlled substance"? unless of course you mean "legalised" like prescription drugs, which no one ever does
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/index.html
Re: Godammed SDN
it's pretty awesome that page uses my exact terminology but hey, you know what would be fun?
having a drug control argument with zod and darth
go to hell, i'm off to fucking romania
(i don't really think you should go to hell, but i'm really going to romania. see you in some two weeks guys )
having a drug control argument with zod and darth
go to hell, i'm off to fucking romania
(i don't really think you should go to hell, but i'm really going to romania. see you in some two weeks guys )
DracuLax - when even Death can't scare the shit out of you
Re: Godammed SDN
so in other words you didn't actually read itDooey Jo wrote:it's pretty awesome that page uses my exact terminology but hey, you know what would be fun?
having a drug control argument with zod and darth
go to hell, i'm off to fucking romania
(i don't really think you should go to hell, but i'm really going to romania. see you in some two weeks guys )
did you know that robitussin ac is a controlled substance?
but surely you can't be in favor of making a cough syrup illegal
but why address points when you can just make angry strawmen and stamp your feet
Re: Godammed SDN
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
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
Re: Godammed SDN
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.
Re: Godammed SDN
you could try not being a shithead for once but that might be too much to askDooey 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
i mean who needs to actually argue points when we can just scream at each other
Re: Godammed SDN
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
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
Re: Godammed SDN
turns out words actually mean thingsDooey 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
or do you expect people to magically divine your intent over the internet
- Bakustra
- Religious Fifth Columnist Who Hates Science, Especially Evolution
- Posts: 1216
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:32 pm
- Location: Wherever I go, there are nothing but punks like you.
Re: Godammed SDN
Behold, we are become SDN, stupidest of arguments
shut up the two of you and find some common ground to agree about
shut up the two of you and find some common ground to agree about
Re: Godammed SDN
i see where dooey jo is coming from
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"
Re: Godammed SDN
the problem is nobody ever presents a compelling reason to keep marijuana in the same category as heroinadr wrote:i see where dooey jo is coming from
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"
where's the evidence?
- Bakustra
- Religious Fifth Columnist Who Hates Science, Especially Evolution
- Posts: 1216
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:32 pm
- Location: Wherever I go, there are nothing but punks like you.
Re: Godammed SDN
well to be fair i can see both sides of the argument (lol golden mean!!!!)adr wrote:i see where dooey jo is coming from
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"
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
Re: Godammed SDN
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
i expect people on the internet to magically read the worst possible things into my words, yesZod wrote:or do you expect people to magically divine your intent over the internet
DracuLax - when even Death can't scare the shit out of you