I have pointed out several.
Now i'm thinking you don't have a good command of English. I said:
You assert a laughably illogical statement, but you do not cite a particular statement and identify it as laughable nor your reasons for thinking it so.Just what is it about one of my statements that you consider laughable?
To which you responded "I have pointed out several."
You didn't quote my statement, and you didn't explain why it was laughable. You just hand-waved it off as if you didn't need to respond to the point.
Had you had the guts to quote my statement and explain why it was "laughable", they I think you would have found yourself in the position of being unable to defend your point. But just for what it's worth, let us examine this statement which I suspect you consider to be "laughable."
It is this comment right here.
It doesn't stay in their homes, it keeps getting spread to the next generation.Break the chain of contact, and we can start producing generations free of the attraction to use drugs.
Now this is a two part statement, but presumably you consider both parts laughable. Let us take the first part first.
It doesn't stay in their homes, it keeps getting spread to the next generation.
I asked "ConservingFreedom" how he came to learn about weed. He says "He read about it in newspapers and magazines". (Or words to that effect.) That is of course utter nonsense. He learned of it because other people in his community spread it to him. (Like a communicable disease, as I have pointed out numerous times.)
How then did it stay in the homes of the users? Did it not spread outside their homes? Did it not spread to the next generation of users?
Again, I see nothing laughable in that statement, it looks very straightforward and accurate. Perhaps you didn't object to that statement, and it is only the second statement you found "laughable." Again, had you simply said which statement, and *WHY* it was laughable, it would have saved a great deal of wondering.
So perhaps the second statement is laughable. Break the chain of contact, and we can start producing generations free of the attraction to use drugs.
This is funny? This is ridiculous? It also seems pretty straightforward to me. If the subsequent generation can be kept from being exposed to dangerous drugs, they will never develop an affinity for them. The same argument has been made regarding the Palestinians, who passionately teach their children to hate. If that chain of hatred can be broken, the future can proceed without it.
Now perhaps you are saying "that is too great a task to accomplish." ? I find this argument hypocritical from someone who is always pointing out the power of God.
Laughable, in fact.