You have constant problem with stating facts not in evidence. I think you do this on purpose, so I'm disinclined to post the history of the planet, as you do, in order to show it. It's enough to say that you have said that the Peoples representatives must decide what is harmful and what isn't (of which we agree). Therein they have the capacity to decide that pot is harmful to others. They may be wrong, but there is no other way to make that decision, other than for you to appoint yourself king. Again, I'm not inclined to allow that.
It's pretty hard not to be irritated by prohibitionists like you kid, but I try..
Wow pops, you must be what 104? Perhaps you're senile? You're certainly crotchety, and I'm guessing that's the main attribute that will prevent you from getting any converts.
There are several ways to argue.
1. Shout people down.
- At the right time and place this may be useful, but never for winning the person shouted down as a convert.
2. Repeating the same line over and over. Pausing to plan the next attack, but not to listen. Never answering questions or hypothetically (they're only traps and straw men), but returning to the same tired line, over and over and over.
- This is a purely defensive mindset that makes the person happy at the end of the day that they themselves have not been persuaded. It is seen most in old men at the end of bars, who have their one thought and their pride is sticking to it. This too is a loser in persuading people.
3. Put out your idea. Invite genuine controversy. Be eager to answer questions. The more times you are asked the better, its an opportunity to give another example, another analogy, another hypothetical, that will persuade the other side. Ask your own challenging questions and listen to the answers. Hypotheticals are good because they draw on the objective and move away from the passion. Don't be too proud to concede ground, if its for intellectually valid reasons, even if its just to acknowledge that the other person is genuine (assuming they are). This is the MOST persuasive form of argument. In the last 20 years, I've brought easily over 100 people to the conservative mind set with it, and I'm not a social guy.
Now the styles above have nothing to do with being right or wrong, although with #3 it helps. Many people who are right are stuck in number 1 or 2. You my friend are stuck on #2. I realize what you think of me, but I'm giving you the best advice I can and opening myself to your ridicule for it. You aren't doing yourself any favors.
You have a lot of knowledge, and I like your passion for freedom, but I wouldn't want you on my side of an argument because you are bad at it, and drive people away. You're stuck on transmit.
For example, although I'm advocating that the federal government has overreached and that the People of the states should decide the law, to you I am a prohibitionist. Why? Because you are locked into the logic that anyone that disagrees with you on any facet of your argument is out to get you and an enemy of the Constitution.
I have legitimate concerns about regulating antibiotics and such, but I'd frankly like to see a few states legalize pot (and not half measures like legalizing possession of 1 ounce), but full blown legalization. That would give the country a chance to see how it works and adjust their views one way or another on the "harm" question.
Having a disagreement about the issue of harm does not make one an enemy of the state, as you emphatically insist. You have never stopped to address the perils of your own logic concerning overturning the People via judicial means.
Is it bad when the People make a bad decision concerning harm? Yes. But any alternative beyond changing the viewpoint of the people is far worse. I do not want kings, demi-kings, or king makers deciding for us, what is best for us. We do it best, even when we don't get it right the first time.
Perhaps a constitutional amendment requiring that every law must also state the harm done to others would be agreeable to you? I know you are insistent that it shouldn't be required, but neither should the Bill or Rights be required. However, its been most helpful.
I've never advocated any such thing.
Belied by your post #158:
"-- I'm still missing your point. Mine is that the citizens of the states effected have the authority to prohibit or legalize pot, as well as polygamy, incest, etc."
158 posted on 10/25/2006 5:17:04 AM PDT by SampleMan
I'm advocating that the federal government has overreached and that the People of the states should decide the law,
to you I am a prohibitionist. Why?
Because you insist that the citizens of the states effected have "the authority to prohibit or legalize pot, as well as polygamy, incest, etc." -- Thats why.
Having a disagreement about the issue of harm does not make one an enemy of the state, as you emphatically insist.
This is the MOST persuasive form of argument.
In the last 20 years, I've brought easily over 100 people to the conservative mind set with it, and I'm not a social guy.
Having every level of gov't in the USA ignoring the constitution is far worse than just "Having a disagreement", imo..
Majority rule prohibitionists are indeed enemies of our rule of constitutional law, just as Senator Reed put it nearly 80 years ago.
--- Our prohibitionary 'wars' against drugs, guns, vice, etc - are tearing this country apart.