And I'm arguing against scientific standards being violently enforced by the state and you conclude that I'm anti-science.
No you're not. You're arguing against nothing. Again, scientific standards don't create violence. Dogma does. If we followed science, we wouldn't be enforcing things with violence because we know for a fact that there are better ways to handle these things. If you want to be angry at someone for enforcing scientific standards with violence, be angry at the people who do not understand that they can't just accept the parts of science they like and get rid of the rest.
And now we're back to your latest post.
I'm not saying that these assertions are true science and therefore science is oppressive, I'm saying that these assertions aren't necessarily science at all, and even if they are it still doesn't give you the right to tell someone they can't shoot meth.
No, you're saying that science is being enforced with violence and denying that scientific literacy has anything to do with whether or not this happens. You are wrong. There's no getting around it. And again, science isn't telling you whether or not you can shoot meth. Society is. You live in a society. If you don't like that, don't live in this society. There are plenty around the world where they don't give a shit if you're shooting meth into your balls every 30 minutes until you run out, but this isn't one of them. By living in this society and reaping its benefits, you are agreeing to abide by its rules. Period. If you don't like those rules, leave or try to change them.
You're the one who turned a conversation about drug legalization into a conversation about scientific literacy. You changed the subject.
You're goddamn right I did, because if people were more scientifically literate, we would understand that drug abuse is not a law enforcement issue but rather a personal health issue. But I didn't change the subject. I made a statement and then YOU changed the subject from the legalization of drugs and the methods by which that is possible to whether or not science has a place in politics or philosophy. YOU changed the subject. Accept that. If you read that and think that you didn't change the subject, you are an idiot.
This is an issue of personal freedom which can't be quantified scientifically.
And I never advocated for quantifying personal freedom, but I will say that you are 100% wrong. It absolutely can be quantified. There is literally a famous quantification called the Freedom Index which measures civil the amount of civil liberties afforded to people under specific governments. So not only can it be quantified, it already has been.
You're the one making the assertion that our scientific understanding of certain chemicals should determine whether or not we should allow people to consume or sell them.
No, I'm not. I said that it currently happens because you claimed that nobody has the right to do that which is categorically false. Some people do have the right to do that because we as a society gave them that right. Denying that is denying fact. What I am advocating for is scientific literacy so that people are capable of making reasonable choices regarding drug usage and their personal health. This even decreases the need for a regulatory agency like the FDA, an idea I'm sure has you jizzing in your pants.
I'm not saying science isn't important, it's extremely important.
Go on...
It just has nothing to do with this particular argument.
Oh. Science just has nothing to do with an argument which is based entirely on the idea that if people are better educated, they will be able to make better decisions about the world around them. Boy do I feel like an idiot.
Yes, I completely agree that increased scientific literacy would increase the chances of us having a more reasonable drug policy. But If you think that's the solution in and of itself then you're out of your goddamn mind.
It's the solution in the same way that designing a car is a solution to getting places faster. The fact that cars exist will not help you get where you need to go any faster, but if you use that car as a tool it will help you do just that.
And I liked that jab at Ron Paul that you decided to throw in there and then delete because it made you look like an idiot.
I deleted it because it wasn't relevant and was malicious. It didn't make me look like an idiot. I stand by my statement. Ron Paul is a moron.
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul or anybody else because I don't believe in government
So what you're saying is you wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because that decision isn't dumb enough for you. Small government isn't enough, you need no government, because you're tired of wearing tin-foil hats when you jerk off to gay porn because if you don't the government will find out and assassinate you.
but it's funny that you'd associate me with a doctor who ran for president and said on national TV that he'd legalize heroin end the wars of foreign aggression (you know, the ones that kill millions of innocent people) and try to use that to discredit me, my scientific literacy, and my understanding of the drug war.
Again, I deleted it for a reason. It was a pointless attack and it had no place in this conversation. I apologize for that. But the fact of the matter is Ron Paul wasn't for any of those things. He can talk up a storm, but his actions spoke much louder than his words. Union busting, trying to get rid of regulatory agencies that protect workers. He's not pro-small-government, he's anti-middle-class.
Fucking pathetic, exactly what I'd expect from an Obama apologist like yourself.
See, I'm not an "Obama apologist". I agree with some of the things he's done and disagree with other things. Because I don't judge politicians based on anything but currently available evidence.
He was one of the only serious pro-legalization (of all drugs) candidate in recent times, he wasn't funded by the huge banks who are currently plundering the middle class that you said he was trying to destroy, and he was the only semi-viable anti-war choice.
He was also those other things that I said, but feel free to ignore that. He wasn't paid by the banks, sure, but he wants to get rid of the regulatory agencies that protect us from big banks trying to fuck us just because they're run by the government.
But yeah, he's just a corporate shill trying to destroy the middle class, unlike Obama who only doesn't legalize heroin because it would upset republicans.
You know, for someone who doesn't support Ron Paul, you sure sound like a Ron Paul supporter. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter if he was trying to legalize drugs or decrease the size of government because the policies that he is for would literally destroy peoples' lives. He is not interested in helping to protect people from predatory practices in industry. He would be content destroying things like the minimum wage because it hurts corporations. It doesn't matter how much money he takes from corporations, the things he preaches would only be good for corporations. But hey, if you want to work for 10 cents a day in a factory with no safety precautions because you don't like the government, I hear the weather in Cambodia is great.
Again, I don't expect you to understand any of this, as you insist on talking past me and ignoring everything I'm saying. I know I'm not going to change your mind, I only wasted my time responding to all this in the hopes that someone better than you is reading it, so don't even bother responding if your goal is to change my mind.
Oooh, good one. You talk past me and ignore everything I say, and then you say that's what I've been doing. Clever. Except it's not, and you're an idiot.
My goal isn't to change my mind, my goal now is to absolutely humiliate you. And I think I've done a fine job. Not that it