3 ms·

I see you're conveniently ignoring my other points (that you're arguing against a straw man, that implementation is a key issue) besides your incredibly dumb ap

I see you're conveniently ignoring my other points (that you're arguing against a straw man, that implementation is a key issue) besides your incredibly dumb appropriation of the gay rights plight as an analogy for drug legalization. I'll take that to mean you're sufficiently embarrassed about grandstanding for no reason. I hope in the future you read more carefully =).

ObviousScience 12y ago
I was debating making one more reply to apologize for that, actually, when you pointed it out in our other thread of comments. I'll do so here and edit my original reply (if I still can): I'm sorry for my replies to you, they were partially off topic, and I think I initially misunderstood your point. I still think you're overly focused on kids' safety, which is one of the main things the regulation you're talking about implementing as the main question we face is actually supposed to deal with. (The other things it deals with is other kinds of verification that you're buying appropriate amounts, eg, not reselling.) I do agree that how we implement such decisions is one of the key questions about how we implement a decision to legalize drugs, but I'd argue it's entirely irrelevant (and a variation on "think of the children!") to the decision of whether or not to go about legalizing more recreational drugs. > your incredibly dumb appropriation of the gay rights plight as an analogy for drug legalization Gay rights isn't an analogy for drug legalization, nor have I ever tried to claim the two were analogous. It just happens that many good examples of clearly fallacious arguments which are widely known come from people arguing against the rights of gays, and I elected to use two arguments that have been told to me personally as examples of poor arguments which have a similar structure to ones you were making. There is no deeper link nor analogy between the two topics.

ObviousScience 12y ago

I was debating making one more reply to apologize for that, actually, when you pointed it out in our other thread of comments. I'll do so here and edit my original reply (if I still can): I'm sorry for my replies to you, they were partially off topic, and I think I initially misunderstood your point. I still think you're overly focused on kids' safety, which is one of the main things the regulation you're talking about implementing as the main question we face is actually supposed to deal with. (The other things it deals with is other kinds of verification that you're buying appropriate amounts, eg, not reselling.) I do agree that how we implement such decisions is one of the key questions about how we implement a decision to legalize drugs, but I'd argue it's entirely irrelevant (and a variation on "think of the children!") to the decision of whether or not to go about legalizing more recreational drugs. > your incredibly dumb appropriation of the gay rights plight as an analogy for drug legalization Gay rights isn't an analogy for drug legalization, nor have I ever tried to claim the two were analogous. It just happens that many good examples of clearly fallacious arguments which are widely known come from people arguing against the rights of gays, and I elected to use two arguments that have been told to me personally as examples of poor arguments which have a similar structure to ones you were making. There is no deeper link nor analogy between the two topics.