New Testingstan

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

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

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.

no that pretty much exactly addresses 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.

son

it is in fact you who completely miss the point

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

Dooey Jo wrote:son

it is in fact you who completely miss the point

Ok then, explain your logic then if I've missed your point ...

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

B-b-b-but... someone is wrong on the internet!

darthdavid has no idea what he's talking about but dooey jo is on the wrong side of the issue

case dismissed

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"

Dooey Jo wrote:

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?

since the definition of "controlled substance"? unless of course you mean "legalised" like prescription drugs, which no one ever does

Dooey Jo wrote:since the definition of "controlled substance"? unless of course you mean "legalised" like prescription drugs, which no one ever does

someone needs to re-read the definition of a controlled substance again

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/index.html

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 )

Dooey 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 )

so in other words you didn't actually read it

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

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

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

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

Behold, we are become SDN, stupidest of arguments

shut up the two of you and find some common ground to agree about

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"

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"

the problem is nobody ever presents a compelling reason to keep marijuana in the same category as heroin

where's the evidence?

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"

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