Jump to content

Losers almost kill baby


Recommended Posts

People who think they're better than others because they're dirty drug addicts.

 

 

Because I think it's bad for motivation and individual achievement.

 

So you want more people to lack motivation and personal achievement? Yeah, that's a great plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 581
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

that's a false argument plenty of people smoke marijuana and still hold down good jobs that are productive tax paying members of society

 

Yup and there are plenty who don't and I'm pretty sure their ranks will increase if it's legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup and there are plenty who don't and I'm pretty sure their ranks will increase if it's legal.

 

What do you think causes more lost days of work? Alcohol or marijuana?

 

How about more car accidents?

 

Domestic violence cases?

 

And yet alcohol is legal, and taxed, and regulated. Why not do the same for marijuana?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think causes more lost days of work? Alcohol or marijuana?

 

How about more car accidents?

 

Domestic violence cases?

 

And yet alcohol is legal, and taxed, and regulated. Why not do the same for marijuana?

 

More people miss work due to alcohol and it's legal so we should legalize marijuana. Are you a stoner? Because that sounds like the logic of a stoner.

 

I don't claim to be my brother's keeper.

 

It's not the job of the state to engage in social planning.

 

Unless you think it is. In which case, well...

 

And there's the problem I have with libertarians. Let people do whatever they want. I don't care it won't effect me. Well guess what, it does effect you.

Edited by Chef Jim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More people miss work due to alcohol and it's legal so we should legalize marijuana. Are you a stoner? Because that sounds like the logic of a stoner.

 

No. what Im saying is it's logically inconsistent to allow something that's universally agreed to be harmful to society while banning something less harmful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. what Im saying is it's logically inconsistent to allow something that's universally agreed to be harmful to society while banning something less harmful.

 

No it's not. Alcohol impairs you. Causes sometime irreparable harm to people and their families. But at this stage of the game it would be nearly impossible to make it illegal again. That is why it's legal. Now putting something else on the shelves that also impairs people is not a good idea. Why should you? Because people like it and alcohol is legal. Where the hell is the logic in that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not. Alcohol impairs you. Causes sometime irreparable harm to people and their families. But at this stage of the game it would be nearly impossible to make it illegal again. That is why it's legal. Now putting something else on the shelves that also impairs people is not a good idea. Why should you? Because people like it and alcohol is legal. Where the hell is the logic in that?

 

There's an old Jewish maxim that goes something like "Any law that's not obeyed is a bad law." it's why alcohol prohibition failed, it's why marijuana prohibition is failing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there's the problem I have with libertarians. Let people do whatever they want. I don't care it won't effect me. Well guess what, it does effect you.

Then stop complaining when the power to exact the social engineering you advocate for falls into the hands of liberals, because "I don't care, it won't effect me."

 

Well guess what? It does effect you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there's the problem I have with libertarians. Let people do whatever they want. I don't care it won't effect me. Well guess what, it does effect you.

 

Then stop complaining when the power to exact the social engineering you advocate for falls into the hands of liberals, because "I don't care, it won't effect me."

 

Well guess what? It does effect you.

 

"Affect." You morons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fi

Then stop complaining when the power to exact the social engineering you advocate for falls into the hands of liberals, because "I don't care, it won't effect me."

 

Well guess what? It does effect you.

 

What the !@#$ are you talking about? First off keeping pot illegal is social engineering? Ok. Second where did I ever imply that liberal social engineering (not that's social engineering) that I didn't care because it wouldn't effect me. Of course it would.

 

"Affect." You morons.

 

I can never ever get those two correct. :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There's an old Jewish maxim that goes something like "Any law that's not obeyed is a bad law." it's why alcohol prohibition failed, it's why marijuana prohibition is failing.

 

Cereal killers all over the country hope you become president someday.

 

Babies and puppies on he other hand.......

 

Plus the fact that making pot legal means productive members of society will have to weave their way through a maze of stoned idiots just to get to work and have to listen to them constantly blather on killing what would otherwise be productive time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the !@#$ are you talking about? First off keeping pot illegal is social engineering? Ok.

Yes. Laws put in place to prohibit personal choices that those seeking the legislation find distasteful, for the purposes of curbing said behavior, is social engineering.

 

Second where did I ever imply that liberal social engineering (not that's social engineering) that I didn't care because it wouldn't effect me. Of course it would.

My point is that your advocacy of your preferred brand of social engineering legitimizes all social engineering; so when you advocate for it, you don't get to complain when they other guys get into power, and institute their preferred brand.

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Laws put in place to prohibit personal choices that those seeking the legislation find distasteful, for the purposes of curbing said behavior, is social engineering.

 

 

My point is that your advocacy of your preferred brand of social engineering legitimizes all social engineering; so when you advocate for it, you don't get to complain when they other guys get into power, and institute their preferred brand.

 

So because I advocate prohibiting one particular personal choice legitimizes all social engineering? Yeah, that's rich. Murder is a personal choice, is keeping it illegal a form of social engineering? If so are you for or against murder being illegal?

 

Way to go chef... You thwarted Merpers attempt to ice the thread into dormancy again with post #516

 

No I think your continues arguments with him will keep this thread alive. That and prove you're a clueless stoner.

Edited by Chef Jim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So because I advocate prohibiting one particular personal choice legitimizes all social engineering? Yeah, that's rich. Murder is a personal choice, is keeping it illegal a form of social engineering? If so are you for or against murder being illegal?

For the puposes of this discussion, please consider "personal choice" to be synonymous with liberty. Liberty, logically being defined as the freedom to act, restricted only by the intrusion into the liberty of others. Murder falls outside this sphere.

 

Your desire to impede another's legal ability to smoke pot is morally no different than someone else seeking to restrict you legal ability to own guns, speak freely, practice your own religion, etc.

 

Your own argument legitimizes the weapon, so you can't then complain when others use it against you.

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...