You're viewing part of a thread.
Man you had a lot more effort to dedicate to this guy than me lol
I wonder when he'll realise that everyone he's been rude to was basically agreeing with him
More time than effort on my part. You know you have nothing going on when interacting with a person like that is a reasonable way to kill time. lol
I'm not sure they ever will realize that. We probably wound up being posted on some anti drug prohibition forum with a "see what I have to deal with?" title and a lot of circle jerking. haha
I have some empathy I remember posting on /r/drugs when I was 16 too...
I am not sure if you meant it as such, but that was a great burn. haha
I absolutely empathize with the "Bullheaded, everyone is wrong but me" teenage mentality as well. Especially that mentality mixed with unfettered access to the internet.
Age sure does wear it thin though. haha
See, but you are wrong, and now you're trying to pretend you're not, because you're a ~20 something male who can't accept when they make a mistake, and they always have to learn through being humiliated, than being ashamed for a few weeks, and then not doing that same mistake publicly again.
Remember the time you actually linked "that's a fallacy" , thinking naming a fallacy means you "win" a debate, when you presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong, when obviously, that's not the case.
Let me summarise the dozens of comments here. You have been arguing with 2 or 3 people for a day or so about drug liberalisation.
All 3 of those people agree the drug laws are overly punitive at the moment and the stigma is unfair. At least two of them have said that they have used drugs in the past and had a positive experience.
The only point of disagreement is the extent to which propaganda from the 20th century shapes attitudes today. I think we all agree it still does to some extent.
I think you need to work on your persuasive writing and debating skills if you've managed to create a flame war out of a comment chain where almost everyone is in agreement. Calling people "stupid" and "thick" doesn't help you win your case, and neither does being patronising to people.
In my opinion you made the original post because:
- You wanted to soapbox about your political beliefs regarding drugs.
- You wanted to argue with people who didn't share your views.
You've ended up with a thread where most people share most of your views so you've just started trolling them.
a day or so about drug liberalisation.
But you're pretending we're not arguing over drug "liberalisation", so which is it? Am I arguing with you over that, or something else?
The only point of disagreement is
So you get to ignore all the stupid mistakes you made, and say what the conversation is about? Seems like you haven't had any conversations in real life...
I think you need to work on your persuasive writing and debating skills
Oh God, more of this. It's so clear what you value and what you pretend to be. Like when you thought that you'd win an argument by yelling out "fallacy", as if that meant that another person has to be wrong. Showing so clearly that you think that is an incredibly clear sign of how immature you are, philosophically.
You're pretending you don't know what an implication is (while still arguing based on what you think I implied), you're pretending like drug wars didn't start in the 20th century, and you're pretending you didn't say all the stupid shit you did. So, what do you think of the book? (Which you haven't read, like you've not read any others on the subject either.)
Quite frankly, I thank you for the entertainment.
The drug wars obviously didn't start in the 20th century with Nixon's war on drugs. For example Britain fought two opium wars in China in ths 18/19th C. to force the export of opium to those communities to balance our trade deficit with tea. China had tried to ban opium several times before but I suppose it's just that some western propaganga is to blame? Then there is the temperance movement which started in the late 19th century and had alcohol prohobited for many years in the states.
There is something ingrained in people that distrust drugs, and therefore make propaganda campaigns like the war on drugs a vote winner.
Anyway I really didn't mean to reply again to this thread. Have a good rest of your day!
Edit: I've got a postgrad master degree in philosophy btw
A "war ON drugs" is a bit different from "a war FOR drugs". Perhaps you don't speak English?
The opioid wars weren't wars ON drugs.
Genuinely I wonder how people like you aren't ashamed to post. Genuinely baffles me.
You don't even read the comments you reply to. Vice laws have been tried several times in history.
You just don't know your fucking history, yet you're childish enough to argue me without even having a fucking point. It's pathetic.
It's generally accepted the war on drugs "really" began in the 70's, in the form it is today.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs
The term "war on drugs" was popularized by the media after a press conference, given on June 17, 1971, during which President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse "public enemy number one". He stated, "In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive. ... This will be a worldwide offensive.
This is evident from a whole lot of historic facts — all of which you're unaware of, obviously.
Hey how about that time when you thought that saying "fallacy" wins you an argument?
Remember, you larping someone who understand how debating works? Remember that? Oh you don't, because it'd show just how much of a master debater you are?: )
No, he's not agreeing with me.
You don't understand the propaganda.
Do you think that if everyone who agreed on cannabis being mostly harmless, we'd still have cannabis prohibition? Ofc not.
And cannabis isn't even causing the most harm. We can actually get rid of drug cartels and make hundreds of billions of dollars in tax money by legalising drugs, but the efforts to do so are slowed by fucknuts like you and him who don't realise that you can slow something down even when you pretend to agree with it.