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.
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.)
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!
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’ve ended up with a thread where most people share most of your views so you’ve just started trolling them.
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?
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…
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!