Marijuana.com

Buzzby

From a pragmatic point of view (i.e. furthering the legalization of marijuana) I'd say you're trying to play the game in the wrong arena. By casting the arguments in terms of "good", "evil", "moral", and "immoral" you're never going to convince anyone of anything, except maybe convincing yourself of your own moral superiority. That's just ego bullsh*t.

If you tell your opponent that their position is "evil" or "immoral" you harden them against whatever substantive evidence and arguments you may have to present. Most people don't do what they consider to be "evil" or "immoral" and take personal offense when someone suggests that their beliefs fall into that bag. Moral and immoral, good and evil have no discernible physical reality. They exist only in people's heads and in each head they're different. That makes them almost impossible to debate because each person has a different concept of what they mean.

Instead we should go right to the evidence and arguments. Instead of saying "It's immoral to put a person in jail for possession of a plant", which is hard to get across to a person who thinks smoking marijuana is immoral, you can say, "We're spending X billions of your tax dollars to lock up people who have hurt neither themselves or anyone else". That casts it as something that would be advantageous to your opponent instead of telling him that he's an immoral bastard, which is sure to turn him off. Then he'll give you the reasons he thinks marijuana is bad and, if you've got the evidence and arguments, you can counter them one by one. That's how you change a person's mind. Maybe not your belief-bound opponent but definitely the people observing the debate. Having better evidence and better arguments is how you win a debate. Impugning your opponents morals is not.

__________________

 

Tolerance4all

You are attacking me not the statements.

The statements stand for themselves.

I am not trying to convince prohibitionist's, I am trying to convince the people on this forum that if you don't defend everyone who is looking at prison time for Cannabis then you are enabling the problem.

There I have stated it differently, since you seem to be sensitive to trigger words like evil. Although I think evil best describes the present situation in the U.S. Considering the scientific proof that the U.S. goverment totally disregards.

The regulars on this forum have become quite adept at evasion. You may want to try debating the facts, rather than your perception of the character of the posters that don't see it your way. I don't think I am morally superior to anyone. The statements I made are stated as fact. I am not accusing you or anyone else on this site of being evil. I am saying that if you don't oppose the laws consistently you are ENABLING evil.

Buzzby

Please link to the posts and/or quote where I've been attacking you. You won't find any because I don't attack people. Your Buddy made the same accusation but when I asked for examples he waffled away. The one example he came up with was clearly challenging one of his arguments, not a personal attack.


And I say that's a waste of time. I don't see you out here campaigning for "everyone who is looking at prison time for Cannabis", you're campaigning to keep Marc Emery from being subject to the law. We need to campaign against the laws in order to get them changed. You're asking governments to not enforce the laws, which is a quite different thing. Asking for special privileges for one busted drug dealer does not advance the cause.


I believe you missed my point. It's not the word "evil" to which I'm objecting. It's basing arguments on impugning the morals of your opponent, a totally ineffective and even counter-effective tactic.


Has Canada legalized marijuana? No? Then I would have to say that that government is equally "evil". Did Canada say "No!" to the request for arrest and extradition? "Evil" doesn't really describe the act of ignoring scientific evidence (proof is best left to mathematicians). That would be "ignorant" or "conservative".


We have been trying to debate the facts. Niteshift has felt it necessary to defend himself against your personal attacks. I have chosen to ignore them in an effort to stay on point. Marc Emery's faction has been attempting to debate wishful thinking, hero worship, and moral outrage. That's very unconvincing.


Then why do you characterize everyone who disagrees with you as being "evil" and/or "immoral"?


I'm sure you feel that way, but moral judgments are not facts. They're personal opinions.


That's a minor semantic difference. You are still trying to convince people that they are immoral because they have an approach different from your own.

troublemaker_42

Once again Buzzby, your words of wisdom amaze me. I'm sorry Tolerence, but RATIONAL logic and arguments will always always will over emotion, or arguments of the moral variety. You see, facts are facts, but everyone lives by a slghtly different moral code. A feeling or an emotion means nothing, as each can vary from individual to individual. An argument based in facts, which can be proven (or disproven) makes for a much more "universal" understanding, as facts cannot vary....no matter who you are, you can't logically say that one plus one does not equal two.

Quite frankly, i don't agree with your POV on things here, and I don't feel I'm morally inferior to you because of it. From what you have said, you seem to think that those that don't argee with the way you see things are part of the problem, while I see people as like you as the same.....

Buzzby

I owe it all the the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Creator and Supreme Moral Arbiter of the Universe.

 

PotShot

Long live the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Long live his noodly appendages!

Bless me with your noodly wiggleness and divine meatballs!

__________________

Carl Sagan Goodness Richard Dawkins Goodness

troublemaker_42

LMAO....I happened to read your link right after enjoying a nice bowl, and almost fell outta my chair laughing!!!


I BELIEVE!!!!!!! Can I have some sacramental marinara sauce now?

Tolerance4all

From a pragmatic point of view (i.e. furthering the legalization of marijuana) I'd say you're trying to play the game in the wrong arena. By casting the arguments in terms of "good", "evil", "moral", and "immoral" you're never going to convince anyone of anything, except maybe convincing yourself of your own moral superiority. That's just ego bullsh*t.

This was not an attack on my character?

"And I say that's a waste of time. I don't see you out here campaigning for "everyone who is looking at prison time for Cannabis", you're campaigning to keep Marc Emery from being subject to the law. We need to campaign against the laws in order to get them changed. You're asking governments to not enforce the laws, which is a quite different thing. Asking for special privileges for one busted drug dealer does not advance the cause."

I can't possibly stand up for everyone who is facing time for Cannabis infractions. I do stand up and denounce the laws when I can. Like here on this forum. I am saying for the umpteenth time that it is wrong to pick and choose when you will denounce the laws as bad. That is what you people are doing and its wrong, period. Either the laws are bad for everyone or they're not bad at all. Which do you ascribe to. I have not asked any goverment not to enforce their laws. I do ask that they abolish their unjust laws.

"I believe you missed my point. It's not the word "evil" to which I'm objecting. It's basing arguments on impugning the morals of your opponent, a totally ineffective and even counter-effective tactic."

If you think that putting a human in a cage for using Cannabis is not immoral then say so. Otherwise the people who made these laws and the people who perpetuate the war on Canabis users are most certainly evil. You can't keep evading the basic premise of the statement. Either you think its right or its wrong, pick one.

"Has Canada legalized marijuana? No? Then I would have to say that that government is equally "evil". Did Canada say "No!" to the request for arrest and extradition? "Evil" doesn't really describe the act of ignoring scientific evidence (proof is best left to mathematicians). That would be "ignorant" or "conservative"."

Ok all goverments. If they ignore the science then its logical that they have another agenda. Do you really think they continue the war on Cannabis for atruristic reasons?

"We have been trying to debate the facts. Niteshift has felt it necessary to defend himself against your personal attacks. I have chosen to ignore them in an effort to stay on point. Marc Emery's faction has been attempting to debate wishful thinking, hero worship, and moral outrage. That's very unconvincing."

You and he chose to perceive my posts as personal attacks. Even when I was questioning why a LEO would be on this forum I tried to keep it at using LEO. I even said he might be a stand up guy. I acepted the possibility that I could be wrong. It was the fact that a LEO would be here I was questioning. It seems that a favorite tatic here is to cry foul when you can't find another way to refute a post.

"Then why do you characterize everyone who disagrees with you as being "evil" and/or "immoral"?"

I have stated that the act of putting a human in a cage for Cannabis use is an evil act. Anyone who supports putting a human being in a cage for Cannabis use is evil. I have not met anyone on here who I know definitely fits in either of these. Again refute the basic statement if you can. Stop all the evasion.

"I'm sure you feel that way, but moral judgments are not facts. They're personal opinions."

Refute it, tell me my moral judgement is wrong. Any decent human being cannot refute the statement, judgement what ever you want to call it. You know what I am saying. I challenge you once again. Either refuse the challenge (this goes for all of you) or stop calling me an egotistical, moralistic, burnt out, silly ect. ect. These have been some of things I've been called on this forum so far. People in glass houses should not through stones.

"That's a minor semantic difference. You are still trying to convince people that they are immoral because they have an approach different from your own."

Thats just pure bunk. There is a big difference between being evil and enabling evil. If I see some one robbing another while another person stands by and does nothing, I do not see the person standing by as evil. I will say, I see them as cowards who are enabling an evil act to go by uncahllenged. And before you start I'm not calling you a coward. Your approach evidently is different than mine. Thats clear. I am challenging your approach, I have stated my approach. So far you have not refuted any of my statements on their merrits. You evade by refuting my intelligence and my character, not my statements. Do you or do you not think its right to put a human in a cage for Cannabis? Which will lead you to the other statements. No more evasions.

Niteshift

Who's argument? The judge's? I certainly hope you're not talking about him, because he was specifically talking about marijuana. Are you serious? Did you even read it?

Did YOU read it? His speech was on the WoD, tailored to a marijuana legalization crowd. Look at it:

"The war on drugs isn't working"
" continue receiving war-on-drug funding"
"but says there is too much money in the war on drugs"
"It is big business to prosecute the war on drugs"
"American drug" laws"
"safe injection sites" (injecting what? pot?)

He took his WoD arguement and made it for that particular crowd.

We argued that the police, as a body, do not support legalization because it's not in their best interests. I explained why they don't want marijuana legalized, because there would be a mass layoff. You said I didn't have any evidence that it would happen. Well, I just served you a statement of a judge that says there would be a huge funding loss "If you legislate marijuana"!!!

the judge, who is not an expert on the topic and probably hasn't even actually looked into it, said NOTHING about loss of jobs. Loss of funding doesn't necessarily equate to loss of jobs.


2. If you don't oppose evil you enable evil
3. Therefore you must protest every time a human is looking at being put in a cage for Cannabis, or you are enabling evil..

That is simply your opinion. you act as though it is fact .

You may want to try debating the facts, rather than your perception of the character of the posters that don't see it your way. I don't think I am morally superior to anyone. The statements I made are stated as fact.

That's exactly what the problem is...........you are stating them as FACT and they are OPINION. If you can't learn the difference, discussing the points is moot.

Even when I was questioning why a LEO would be on this forum I tried to keep it at using LEO. I even said he might be a stand up guy. I acepted the possibility that I could be wrong. It was the fact that a LEO would be here I was questioning. It seems that a favorite tatic here is to cry foul when you can't find another way to refute a post.

Why I am here was answered a LOT of times. Try a search.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

Murdock

I don't want to take this thread too far off course, but I disagree to a certain degree.. History has shown through wars, and even our current war on marijuana that fear works. Look at the commericals the ONDCP uses, kid smokes pot, cut film come back and see kid pick up gun and shoot friend.

You tell me what has a bigger effect on soccer moms out there, that or scientific studies that show marijuana isn't harmful?

Facts have been on legalization's side since the beginning, and the prohibitionist have used fear mongering and emotion, Who's winning?