Except I did answer your questions. Address the first book I’ve given, and then we’ll talk about nine others, mkay? Or was there perhaps zero reason for you to ask them, because you were asking in bad faith and had no response to when me offering actual literature as an answer, and now you’re just pissy about it?
No, I don’t agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society
Then you’re either ignorant of the subject, or directly benefitting from the prohibition. There’s simply no other alternative. The prohibition of drugs is harmful to society.
What I do believe is drugs should be available for use by consenting adults in a heavily regulated market coupled with intense social safety nets to deal with drug use related problems.
That is them being legal. I never said “unrestricted access to any drug”, did I? (But you won’t have the same asinine literal criteria for your own arguments as you’re trying to do with mine, showing yet another measure of pretentiousness.)
This edit is hilarious as well. Made especially funny by the fact that no one is arguing for drug prohibition.
You’re arguing against the facts of the matter, and now pretending like you don’t know that you’ve only now stated your opinion on the matter, and clearly argued against me, who made his stance very clear. You’re just so pretentious it twists my stomach.
It is really funny to me that you keep cherry picking my responses. It is even more funny that you believe I am arguing against “the facts of the matter”.
I never said “unrestricted access to any drug”, did I?
So you definitely agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted, for the good of society?
What do you believe is the difference between “Prohibition of all drugs to be lifted” and “unrestricted access to any drug”?
Last I checked prohibition means “to prohibit”, or in other words “to restrict”, so a lack of prohibition is a lack of restriction. In your own words “Prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society”.
To quote you, to you.
You’d rather chew your own leg off than answer my question from the previous comment. That’s how strong the propaganda is, and I don’t know why it affects you so much.
I will pose my questions one more time.
Did you ever stop to think that the propaganda you speak of is directly influenced by exactly what steeznson was speaking about?
Why do you believe that anti-drug propaganda only began in the 20th century?
Do you have anything other than wikipedia links to back your stance up? Say, a real study done on the impacts of anti-drug propaganda through the ages which demonstrates that the 20th century was the most militant with it?
Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?
I am most interested in your answer on the last question regarding religion, because you have dodged that one completely while merely touching on the others in your rants.
Is it because to acknowledge religions influence on drug prohibition is to acknowledge that you are wrong about anti drug propaganda “technically” starting in the 20th century just like electricity was “technically” discovered by ancient Greeks?
You’re just so pretentious it twists my stomach.
You should really read that link I commented about “projection”.
What do you believe is the difference between “Prohibition of all drugs to be lifted” and “unrestricted access to any drug”?
You should check a dictionary. A prohibition is when something is illegal to sell. Do you think if something isn’t illegal, it’s unrestricted? Why would you think that?
You’d rather chew your own leg off than answer my question from the previous comment. That’s how strong the propaganda is, and I don’t know why it affects you so much.
I will pose my questions one more time.
And I stand by that.
I’ve answered your questions, but you’re not asking them for any reason. You’re pretending to ask them for a reason. Honestly, what are you, like, 20? This is insanely childish.
#Show me drug propaganda from the 19th century please. I’ll wait right here. You will desperately google some, but the only thing you’ll find from the 19th century is drug adverts, not propaganda. There are a few cases in history of so called vice laws, but prohibition =/= drug propaganda. Perhaps you didn’t realise that, huh?
Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?
Why did you ask for me to mention ten books when you can’t address a single one that I name? Perhaps because you’re a sort of silly little boy who’s pretending to know a lot about something they don’t, thinking that because they’ve smoked weed, they’re not “against the prohibition”, while actively fighting it.
Anyone supporting the prohibition of drugs is acting against the well-being of society in general. That’s an indisputable fact I can and have backed with peer-reviewed studies.
edit oh that’s a fun comment about “projection” from some teen who thinks he “wins” debates by saying “that’s a fallacy” as if you’ve ever opened a philosophy book :DD let alone understood the first thing about psychology. you’ve tried your teenage gotchas several times and i’ve shown you how much of a tit you were being and wow, you instantly stop with the argument I made you feel stupid about.
Why did you ask for me to mention ten books when you can’t address a single one that I name?
You never named 10 books, while I provided a source for over 200.
The purpose was to see what you are reading so I can know what you know. It is not a “gotcha”. You claimed to be well read so it shouldn’t be hard to list off a few books on a topic you also claim to know a lot about.
Perhaps because you’re a sort of silly little boy who’s pretending to know a lot about something they don’t, thinking that because they’ve smoked weed, they’re not “against the prohibition”, while actively fighting it.
Oh look! More projection! I do have to say your one trick pony show is beginning to get boring.
Anyone supporting the prohibition of drugs is acting against the well-being of society in general. That’s an indisputable fact I can and have backed with peer-reviewed studies.
So you keep saying, and yet I have never made a claim otherwise.
edit oh that’s a fun comment about “projection” from some teen who thinks he “wins” debates by saying “that’s a fallacy” as if you’ve ever opened a philosophy book :DD let alone understood the first thing about psychology. you’ve tried your teenage gotchas several times and i’ve shown you how much of a tit you were being and wow, you instantly stop with the argument I made you feel stupid about.
You should probably stop serial editing everyone of your comments. Nothing screams “Chronically online edge lord” quite like constant edits. (As well as commenting on every other comment in this thread, whether it was directed at you or not.)
All in all you need to up your game. Go back to your echo chamber and complain about all the stupid people who just “don’t get it” so you can tucker yourself out for a little nap. I think you need it.
You never named 10 books, while I provided a source for over 200.
And what exactly does this prove? That you know what Google is? Are you pretending you weren’t asking for 10 books I had read on the subject? But, you just admitted you asked for it because you wanted to know what I’d read, so you obviously didn’t want a googled list of books, which you then provided yourself? Continuing with your asinine prescriptive bullshit, but not applying it to yourself? Seeing as how I never said “unrestricted access to any drug.”
Oh look! More projection!
Oh look, a kid pretending he understands psychology!
and yet I have never made a claim otherwise.
Pretending like you don’t understand what an implication is. Very mature, indeed.
You should probably stop serial editing everyone of your comments.
Oh no, I made a typo! Nothing screams “chronically online edgelord” (that’s how you spell “edgelord”) just like thinking that editing a comment is somehow bad.
You try all the most edgelord things, like screaming “fallacy” to win a debate. Remember that? Remember when you tried winning an argument by calling it fallacious, like the edgelord you are, who has never picked up a book on philosophy, yet wants to pretend online he understands rhetoric.
You know what’s another really edgelord (not “edge lord”) thing?
To not answer questions put to you after you pretend to be a master debater.
Perhaps it’s because you literally can’t answer any of those questions, because they show what a bad faith actor you are.
No answers about the books, after having asked for them. Have you read the list of books you linked? Ofc you haven’t. You yourself admit you asked for books I had read, then somehow think a list of books from an Amazon search is related?
The wars for drugs weren’t wars on drugs, but for them, silly.
All in all, you need to up your game. (Thinking you “win” a debate by loudly yelling "fallacy! Hahahah, so good)
Well, if you don’t think you’re “debating”, why did you answer by quoting something I said and then just writing “fallacious”? I’ll tell you. Because first off, you don’t know philosophy and thought pointing out a fallacy means you “win” the conversation.
I haven’t refused to answer any of your questions, buddy boy, you just keep shifting your goalposts. Maybe you’ve heard of that expression when larping a philosopher?
You asked for books. That was the first question you had, after I said I can provide literature. You then arbitrarily asked for ten books, supposing I haven’t read ten books on the subject. (If narratives are included, I definitely have.) I then provided a lot of literature, emphasising the book “Good Cop, Bad War”, which highlights how the drug war has worked and what is has done, and why it is that it exists in the first place. You can read a lot of that from Noam Chomsky as well, as the “War ON drugs” (not war for drugs, like the opium wars you referred to) began in the States, and Chomsky is really good at breaking down internal US politics of the time.
But you’re not looking to discuss the subject, because you know you’re wrong, so you can’t address it, because you’re not a big enough person to actually admit when someone else makes a good point or proves you wrong. Perhaps you got too much of that in real life and now thought that you wouldn’t have to take any online. Well, you know, if you keep being wrong so stubbornly, and using “fallacies” to “debate” then, you’re gonna have to learn to accept people calling you out on it.
To not answer questions put to you after you pretend to be a master debater.
not answering questions, especially loaded or irrelevant ones, is a great debate strategy.
edit:
while i think they are picking a semantic fight about a topic on which they are not prepare to engage, your engagement has been kind of shitty toward them, too. i think you could be better and still show that they are silly and ignorant of the topic.
Except I did answer your questions. Address the first book I’ve given, and then we’ll talk about nine others, mkay? Or was there perhaps zero reason for you to ask them, because you were asking in bad faith and had no response to when me offering actual literature as an answer, and now you’re just pissy about it?
Then you’re either ignorant of the subject, or directly benefitting from the prohibition. There’s simply no other alternative. The prohibition of drugs is harmful to society.
That is them being legal. I never said “unrestricted access to any drug”, did I? (But you won’t have the same asinine literal criteria for your own arguments as you’re trying to do with mine, showing yet another measure of pretentiousness.)
You’re arguing against the facts of the matter, and now pretending like you don’t know that you’ve only now stated your opinion on the matter, and clearly argued against me, who made his stance very clear. You’re just so pretentious it twists my stomach.
It is really funny to me that you keep cherry picking my responses. It is even more funny that you believe I am arguing against “the facts of the matter”.
What do you believe is the difference between “Prohibition of all drugs to be lifted” and “unrestricted access to any drug”?
Last I checked prohibition means “to prohibit”, or in other words “to restrict”, so a lack of prohibition is a lack of restriction. In your own words “Prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society”.
To quote you, to you.
I will pose my questions one more time.
I am most interested in your answer on the last question regarding religion, because you have dodged that one completely while merely touching on the others in your rants.
Is it because to acknowledge religions influence on drug prohibition is to acknowledge that you are wrong about anti drug propaganda “technically” starting in the 20th century just like electricity was “technically” discovered by ancient Greeks?
You should really read that link I commented about “projection”.
You should check a dictionary. A prohibition is when something is illegal to sell. Do you think if something isn’t illegal, it’s unrestricted? Why would you think that?
And I stand by that.
I’ve answered your questions, but you’re not asking them for any reason. You’re pretending to ask them for a reason. Honestly, what are you, like, 20? This is insanely childish.
#Show me drug propaganda from the 19th century please. I’ll wait right here. You will desperately google some, but the only thing you’ll find from the 19th century is drug adverts, not propaganda. There are a few cases in history of so called vice laws, but prohibition =/= drug propaganda. Perhaps you didn’t realise that, huh?
I do yes. You do not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen
Why did you ask for me to mention ten books when you can’t address a single one that I name? Perhaps because you’re a sort of silly little boy who’s pretending to know a lot about something they don’t, thinking that because they’ve smoked weed, they’re not “against the prohibition”, while actively fighting it.
Anyone supporting the prohibition of drugs is acting against the well-being of society in general. That’s an indisputable fact I can and have backed with peer-reviewed studies.
edit oh that’s a fun comment about “projection” from some teen who thinks he “wins” debates by saying “that’s a fallacy” as if you’ve ever opened a philosophy book :DD let alone understood the first thing about psychology. you’ve tried your teenage gotchas several times and i’ve shown you how much of a tit you were being and wow, you instantly stop with the argument I made you feel stupid about.
You never named 10 books, while I provided a source for over 200.
The purpose was to see what you are reading so I can know what you know. It is not a “gotcha”. You claimed to be well read so it shouldn’t be hard to list off a few books on a topic you also claim to know a lot about.
Oh look! More projection! I do have to say your one trick pony show is beginning to get boring.
So you keep saying, and yet I have never made a claim otherwise.
You should probably stop serial editing everyone of your comments. Nothing screams “Chronically online edge lord” quite like constant edits. (As well as commenting on every other comment in this thread, whether it was directed at you or not.)
All in all you need to up your game. Go back to your echo chamber and complain about all the stupid people who just “don’t get it” so you can tucker yourself out for a little nap. I think you need it.
And what exactly does this prove? That you know what Google is? Are you pretending you weren’t asking for 10 books I had read on the subject? But, you just admitted you asked for it because you wanted to know what I’d read, so you obviously didn’t want a googled list of books, which you then provided yourself? Continuing with your asinine prescriptive bullshit, but not applying it to yourself? Seeing as how I never said “unrestricted access to any drug.”
Oh look, a kid pretending he understands psychology!
Pretending like you don’t understand what an implication is. Very mature, indeed.
Oh no, I made a typo! Nothing screams “chronically online edgelord” (that’s how you spell “edgelord”) just like thinking that editing a comment is somehow bad.
You try all the most edgelord things, like screaming “fallacy” to win a debate. Remember that? Remember when you tried winning an argument by calling it fallacious, like the edgelord you are, who has never picked up a book on philosophy, yet wants to pretend online he understands rhetoric.
I haven’t laughed that hard in months
I really think you should lay down for that nap, or perhaps, get your bottle. Anything to help this tantrum you are throwing.
You know what’s another really edgelord (not “edge lord”) thing?
To not answer questions put to you after you pretend to be a master debater.
Perhaps it’s because you literally can’t answer any of those questions, because they show what a bad faith actor you are.
No answers about the books, after having asked for them. Have you read the list of books you linked? Ofc you haven’t. You yourself admit you asked for books I had read, then somehow think a list of books from an Amazon search is related?
The wars for drugs weren’t wars on drugs, but for them, silly.
All in all, you need to up your game. (Thinking you “win” a debate by loudly yelling "fallacy! Hahahah, so good)
It is funny that you think I am debating you, or that I owe you an answer to any of your questions when you refuse to answer mine.
You really have to get over the book thing. I get it, you don’t read as much as you claim but that is no reason to behave this way.
Take a breather bud. This is no good for you.
Well, if you don’t think you’re “debating”, why did you answer by quoting something I said and then just writing “fallacious”? I’ll tell you. Because first off, you don’t know philosophy and thought pointing out a fallacy means you “win” the conversation.
I haven’t refused to answer any of your questions, buddy boy, you just keep shifting your goalposts. Maybe you’ve heard of that expression when larping a philosopher?
You asked for books. That was the first question you had, after I said I can provide literature. You then arbitrarily asked for ten books, supposing I haven’t read ten books on the subject. (If narratives are included, I definitely have.) I then provided a lot of literature, emphasising the book “Good Cop, Bad War”, which highlights how the drug war has worked and what is has done, and why it is that it exists in the first place. You can read a lot of that from Noam Chomsky as well, as the “War ON drugs” (not war for drugs, like the opium wars you referred to) began in the States, and Chomsky is really good at breaking down internal US politics of the time.
But you’re not looking to discuss the subject, because you know you’re wrong, so you can’t address it, because you’re not a big enough person to actually admit when someone else makes a good point or proves you wrong. Perhaps you got too much of that in real life and now thought that you wouldn’t have to take any online. Well, you know, if you keep being wrong so stubbornly, and using “fallacies” to “debate” then, you’re gonna have to learn to accept people calling you out on it.
not answering questions, especially loaded or irrelevant ones, is a great debate strategy.
edit:
while i think they are picking a semantic fight about a topic on which they are not prepare to engage, your engagement has been kind of shitty toward them, too. i think you could be better and still show that they are silly and ignorant of the topic.