Posted on 05/25/2006 6:51:03 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
So is drug use a race, religion, or political movement to you? Or is it just a group? If its just a group, then can apply to any group right?
How does your twisted logic apply to pedophiles, etc? What if they say its their religion or they form a political party? Are you then a bigot or are you accepting of all practices?
Let's try this again:
I'm tolerating you quite well. I haven't had you imprisoned, caned, or forced to wear a dunce cap. That's tolerance. You have confused "tolerance" with "acceptance". Intolerance would be whining to the moderator to have you removed for being so wrong. I'm happy to allow you to spout your drivel and swat it about like a whipped pup.
I'm forced to ask you to answer the following analogy, just to check your contorted logic.
Were the Allies anti-NAZI bigots, as they didn't tolerate the NAZI's politics or them as a group because of their actions? If not, why not? I just can't wait for your tortured logic. It's like picking a scab.
Straw man (which is all that can be expected of you). I'm not talking about drug use, and have never advocated drug use on this thread. Instead, I'm talking about decriminalizing drug use and possession, which is different. Drug decriminalization is a platform of several political parties, including some factions of major political parties, e.g. the Republican Liberty Caucus, whose official position is this: "We recognize the harm that drug abuse causes, but also that the ‘drug war’ has been ineffective and has led to terrible abuses of personal liberty. We favor flexible alternatives at the state and community level to combat the harmful aspects of drug use."
I'm tolerating you quite well. I haven't had you imprisoned, caned, or forced to wear a dunce cap. That's tolerance.
Wow, it means you won't bring the force of government down on me for exercising free speech? What are you, some sort of anarchist?
You have confused "tolerance" with "acceptance". Intolerance would be whining to the moderator to have you removed for being so wrong.
Me and Jim Robinson, both, then, I guess.
Apply a sunset provision to every law on the books.
If the law is worth keeping it must be individually subject to
debate and reaffirmed every year.
W
Straw man (which is all that can be expected of you).
You called me a bigot. I specifically asked how, kindly using the criteria that you laid out. Only in your world is that a straw man. Again, just because answering the question will make you look foolish, doesn't make something a straw man. Answer the question concerning bigotry! Who is being intolerant of you and how?
As you blathered on about having a political movement, I assume that is what you consider to be the target of bigotry. How? Anyone who doesn't ACCEPT your political views is a bigot? So you're a bigot for not accepting mine? So everyone that won't conform to someone else's opinion is a bigot?
By misusing the term bigot to refer to any and all political disagreements, you strip it of any real meaning.
Intellectually backed into a corner, you revert to calling people "bigot", and then when called on your misuse of the language, you scream "straw man". What's next holding your breath?
Its funny that you only make sense, when you are trying to be ridiculous. Yes, you've hit on the principle of tolerance. An anarchist would burn down your house. I just make your arguments look foolish on a public forum in the arena of ideas. See the subtle difference?
You must have a victim complex to cry "bigot" when people won't agree with you about legalizing drug use. Poor, poor, you.
I called you one, because you are one. I posted the definition. But, apparently you are unable to comprenhend it.
Only in your world is that a straw man.
In my world and everyone else's, except you own fantasy world. Here it is again: "So is drug use a race, religion, or political movement to you?" Incidentally, there are several religions that do use drug use as a central component of them, but that's irrelevant. One more time: I am not advocating drug use, I am advocating drug decriminalization, or at least an end to the drug war as presently fought. Placing me in a position to defend a position that I haven't taken is a straw man argument. I know you're not big on definitions posted from the internet (How's that Britannica been treating you lately?) but here it goes:
The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target [...]As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument.source
I'll ask my question again. How, specifically, are YOU hurt by the neighborhood allowing black people?
1. April 4th, 2005. I had a black person stick a 9mm in my face to get $20.
2. July 16th, 2005. The car in front of me went off the road, while the black man was beating the black woman. As all I could distinguish was that a woman was trying to flee and a man was restraining her and beating her into submission, I felt I had to intervene. Both of these people put me at risk of bodily harm or death.
3. My wife sees 60-70 black people a week at the ER. Besides being occasionally hit or pissed on, it costs all of us about $35,000 a week for their care. That is one of thousands of hospitals.
4. My taxes are higher at a local and federal level both to pay for taking care of these self-induced cripples (and their financial responsibilities) and to pay for the damage they do to society with property damage and harm to other individuals.
5. Ditto my insurance rates.
One more time:
I'll ask my question again. How, specifically, are YOU hurt by someone possessing guns?
1. April 4th, 2005. I had a gun owner stick a 9mm in my face to get $20.
2. July 16th, 2005. The car in front of me went off the road, while the gun owner man was beating the woman. As all I could distinguish was that a woman was trying to flee and a man was restraining her and beating her into submission, I felt I had to intervene. Both of these people put me at risk of bodily harm or death.
3. My wife sees 60-70 gunshot victims a week at the ER. Besides being occasionally hit or pissed on, it costs all of us about $35,000 a week for their care. That is one of thousands of hospitals.
4. My taxes are higher at a local and federal level both to pay for taking care of these self-induced cripples (and their financial responsibilities) and to pay for the damage they do to society with property damage and harm to other individuals.
5. Ditto my insurance rates.
Yes or no: Are these the words of bigots? If so, why, if not, why not?
Your logic goes like this:
I say, "All murderers are bad."
You say, "Ah ha!! Change the noun and it is, 'All black people are bad'. Therefore, you are a bigot!"
Do you have any idea how infantile this makes you sound? You can't understand separating things people have no control over, and which are irrelevant from those actions they chose to take, which are quite relevant.
The many times I've argued with anti-gun proponents, I addressed the issues, the good, the bad, and the importance of rights. I never felt I had to run and cry 'bigot'. But then I had an argument that stood on its own.
Now answer the questions put to you and quit trying to hide from them. You haven't answered a question in about 20 posts, and its fairly clear why. You have no answers that don't make you look foolish.
Your medications not working.
Nope - yet another straw man. A straw giant, really. Pathetic, but not unexpected. Black people, gun owners, and people who possess drugs, do not directly harm others, in and of the cited attribute itself. Murderers, necessarily, do - in and of the fact of being a murderer, without any other context, statistics, nor anecdotes having any bearing on the question. Night and day different. But you can't see this, you are so blinded by your ideology.
Do you have any idea how infantile this makes you sound? You can't understand separating things people have no control over, and which are irrelevant from those actions they chose to take, which are quite relevant.
LOL! Get off your high horse - gun ownership is 100% voluntary, and people have full control over whether they are gun owners or not. Whoops - walked right into that one!
The many times I've argued with anti-gun proponents, I addressed the issues, the good, the bad, and the importance of rights.
Well, good for you! It's a courtesy you haven't afford me. I asked how someone possessing drugs harms YOU, and you answered that someone (presumably, who didn't possess any drugs but wanted to, which is why he made the effort to rob you) stuck a gun in your face for $20.
I never felt I had to run and cry 'bigot'.
I'm not running anywhere - I'm right here. Calling you what you are.
Now answer the questions put to you and quit trying to hide from them.
I'm not hiding from them - I reject them, because they are straw men. You ask whether I consider drug use a religion, when my position is unrelated to drug use at all. You represented that I don't support uniform laws, e.g. against murder. You represented that I wanted to abolish all laws and police, and call it "freedom." So long as you want me to answer to positions I haven't taken, I simply refuse.
You haven't answered a question in about 20 posts, and its fairly clear why.
You still haven't answered how simple drug possession harms you! You have just cited other crimes, which I agree should remain illegal! And it's fairly clear why. You have no answers that don't make you look foolish.
You also haven't responded to the Britannica citation - and you never will - and you never answered whether you support an open market in live human organs. Regarding the latter, I'm guessing that you oppose it, on "moral" grounds, even though (1) you admit it leads to murder, that is, the deaths of innocents, and (2) notwithstanding the fact that your ostensible purpose in law is "too protect the innocent," see (1). But, maybe you do support an open market in organs after all.
Wrong. You're a one trick pony. Got anything else.
It would appear you didn't read the next paragraph, but then you go on and address it, so you're just disingenuous.
A sure admission of defeat if ever there was one!
Calling me wrong doesn't make me so. You've never answered how, you've just cited things we both agree should be criminal, which doesn't answer the question. You are the one who seeks to violently deprive others of their rights; what is your justification for doing so? The bar should be high - you want to lock up second or third time offenders for the rest of their lives.
The fact you mentioned gun ownership in the following paragraph doesn't detract from your charge that I can't separate things people can control from things they can't. People can control gun ownership, and they can control whether they use drugs - that alone refutes your charge, irrespective of what you then went on to say about your own debates with anti-gun people.
In any case, the parallels between your own position about drug users, KKK members about black people, and Brady campaign types about gun owners are truly striking, right down to the formative experience in your youth. Both remain excellent analogies to this dicussion with you, because really the central topic isn't guns, or drugs, or black people, it's how KKK members, Brady types, and you, would enact laws to control them.
You remain a one trick pony.
I don't agree with you that it is logical to separate drug possession from drug use from drug from all of the associated crime, when the correlation numbers are so high and there is no positive outcome to offset the harm. I've presented my argument and you've hid behind "bigot!". At this point its a bit pathetic. Don't you own a thesaurus?
If you have it in you, answer one single question. Should the possession of nerve gas or plutonium be illegal, as "possession" has never hurt anyone? What if just having the nerve gas gives the possessor pleasure? Do you think you can answer this directly? Well, neither did I, but at least I'm still being logical.
You remain a one trick pony.
I don't agree with you that it is logical to separate drug possession from drug use from drug from all of the associated crime, when the correlation numbers are so high and there is no positive outcome to offset the harm. I've presented my argument and you've hid behind "bigot!". At this point its a bit pathetic. Don't you own a thesaurus?
If you have it in you, answer one single question. Should the possession of nerve gas or plutonium be illegal, as "possession" has never hurt anyone? What if just having the nerve gas gives the possessor pleasure? Do you think you can answer this directly? Well, neither did I, but at least I'm still being logical.
Now you're just lying, because you have italicized the above, as if I wrote it, but not only didn't I write it, I didn't even use any of the words in your quote, except one, in my entire post to which you replied. Talk about being disingenuous!
I don't agree with you that it is logical to separate drug possession from drug use from drug from all of the associated crime, when the correlation numbers are so high and there is no positive outcome to offset the harm.
Yes, we obviously disagree on that point. I think it's very logical to separate things that are harmful to others (e.g. armed robbery, socialized medicine) from things which are not (e.g. drug possession, or even use for that matter). I've said this before but it hasn't registered with you (yet, anyway) that the gun grabbers can cite "gun violence," health care costs, firearms homicides, and school shootings till the cows come home, none of which refutes the possibility, or even the benefits, of non-criminal gun onwership. It's not logical to them to separate criminal gun misuse from peaceable gun ownership and use - although people like you and I insist that it be done. Similarly, KKK types can cite the higher incidence of criminality amongst blacks, etc., without ever admitting the logically separable fact that non-criminal blacks very much exist, although people like myself, and I hope you too, insist that this separation is made. But when it comes to the drug issue, you refuse to draw any logical line.
I've presented my argument and you've hid behind "bigot!".
There you go - lying again! Twice! I'm not hiding, and I didn't use the word.
If you have it in you, answer one single question. Should the possession of nerve gas or plutonium be illegal, as "possession" has never hurt anyone? What if just having the nerve gas gives the possessor pleasure? Do you think you can answer this directly?
LOL! One single question, and then you ask three. You can't count, either!
But, to humor you, I'll answer them directly. No to nerve gas, and no to plutonium. Nerve gas is used by dispersing it in the air, creating a deadly condition for humans and most other animal life over a great area; plutonium is used by compressing it so that it becomes a supercritical mass, which causes a nuclear explosion, vaporizing a considerable area. It is impossible to use either of these materials without presenting a grave threat of harm to other, innocent humans or to other's property. (And this is increasingly true based on the quantity that one possesses - it's impossible to create a nuclear explosion from 1 milligram of plutonium, so I would argue that possessing 50 kg ought to be more harshly punished than possessing 1 mg, if the latter is punished at all.) But to the extent that possession implies intention of future use, such possession represents a grave risk of harm or death to others, a risk that is intolerable.
Not so with drugs. It is possible to use drugs without harming any other living being or another's property. After consuming a drug, it is not a foregone conclusion that you will murder, rob, rape, assualt, kidnap or maim others, steal their stuff, or burn their houses down. Some drugs even calm you down, or put you out entirely, making you less likely to go on a murderous rampage than you might otherwise have been.
You, of course, refuse to admit even the possibility that drug use can be separated from other such crimes, but such refusal does not exclude this possibility. In fact, many college students experiment with drugs, using money they lawfully earned, and without harming any other person in so doing. Most cease these experiments, some become addicts, and some admittedly become (or already were) otherwise criminally inclined. But it is possible to use drugs without posing any threat of any kind to another human, or another's property, therefore, one cannot presume harmful intent from mere drug possession, unlike the case for nerve gas or plutonium. But, if you can't or won't see this, my answer to your question will be for naught.
(It is also possible to use guns without causing criminal harm to others - target shooting, hunting, collection, self-defense, for example. So mere gun possession does not automatically imply criminal intent - but the gun grabbers can not or will not see this, and there are many jurisdicitions where gun possession is prohibited outright. It is also possible to be black without necessairly possessing criminal intent, contrary to the beliefs of some white supremists. These two parallels continue to apply perfectly, whether or not they are someone's conscious choice.)
Do you have multiple personality disorder? You've called me a bigot a bizillion times, said I'm like the KKK, and that the WOD is like Jim Crow. I haven't said that I think you are a drug user, but if you are, now would be a good time to stop. Your short term memory is burned.
In reference to calling me a bigot...There you go - lying again! Twice! I'm not hiding, and I didn't use the word.
WTF????? Are you insane? You know people can read your posts. Watching you make a fool of yourself has been entertaining, but I'm honestly feeling guilty right now. You've just completely lost it, and I'm not sure that encouraging you is healthy.
You finally answered a question, and in doing so showed that you aren't for legalizing other items that have no redeeming value, but cause a great deal of harm. Completely unable to show how someone making nerve gas just to possess it is any harm to you. One gram of plutonium properly stored never hurt anyone. You are running wild with assumptions. Bigot.
You have no consistency of thought, just the desire to legalize drugs. I'm done with you now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.