New poll finds increasing support for regulated MJ

Every time I read an andymoon post now,I am reminded of the quote "It's better to keep your mouth shut and let the world think you're a fool,than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

 

no...but you're constantly saying your view should "win" because we're acting on assumption. my point is, you're acting on assumption, too. so why does the fact that we're acting on assumption make our point less valid? "hello, pot...it's the kettle calling."

that plus the whole "i'm the only one posting facts and evidence here" stuff...plus the timeline (or lack thereof) cast considerable shadows on your arguments.

but ultimately...that whole discussion was over for me when you said it didn't matter if it was alive or not...first...i find that absolutely repulsive that you think so little of human life...and second, you did exactly what major just said you did. you told us how it wasn't alive...told us you were going to post timelines...and then flipped it and said, "yeah, but it doesn't matter anyway because even if it is alive, the mother's privacy wins out and she can terminate the life." real hard to carry on a substantive discussion with someone who keeps redefining what we're discussing.

 

You told us about your timeline (and that you'd have a look at it) on 06/26. You posted that you were out of the thread on 07/01.

 

this is such a non-starter andy...you're arguing with people who don't view this as merely a medical procedure...medical procedures aren't designed to destroy life...they're designed to preserve life. that's the hippocratic oath. so when you're arguing with people who feel...or at least think it's possible...that it's a life in there, then the whole idea of it merely as another medical procedure, like removing a bunion, just doesn't work.

 

The point is you DIDN'T support your arguments. I got hung up because it was the ONLY proof you offered besides the poll...and you were calling us out as not using facts or science. You later admitted the poll didn't say what you thought. Also, I can see one post that can be construed to be a concession, but I would be making an assumption to do so.

 

goophers -- exactly...when you argue a point...and then you realize you're not right, you change the argument entirely and say, "well all that doesn't matter anyway." classic.

 

I am not saying they are wrong. We simply can't be sure because the statistical pool is different. For example, if North Dakota uses one method to handle gang violence, it won't necessarily work in L.A.

Based on the facts of one country, you are ASSUMING that it will work here. Perhaps it would, but it is an assumption based on a "non apples to apples" comparison.

 

Hmmmm.....

 

Actually, I think that my side won this one because if you ban things based on assumptions rather than facts, you invite a whole host of problems.

How did you "win" anything when you didn't convince anyone of anything and everyone thinks your arguments make no sense? Interesting definition of "win", I guess. How do you "win" an internet debate anyway?

So, I am not allowed to reflect on my opinions and beliefs combined with information I am given to come up with a new opinion? That is the only way I know to form an opinion, take all available data combine that data with my current knowledge and beliefs, then come to a new opinion.

Except this is your standard methodology of arguing - it's not some type of "oh, maybe I was wrong" thing. You continually make these wild, tangential points to try to support your argument and then consistently back away from them when confronted and say "it doesn't matter anyway" - you did this in the drug thread and you've done it in the abortion thread. If it didn't matter anyway, why were you trying to using them to argue in the first place?

 

1. You're more concerned about the possibility that if you're right someone will be inconvenienced than you are about the possibility that if you're wrong you're killing an innocent life. i just find that disturbing...do you understand why i find that disturbing?
do you understand how people could deem that to be reckless with human life?

2. you're allowed to do whatever you want...but you argued for quite some time about the "is it a life" issue...you told us there were timelines..you told us you had evidence and facts. that made us all assume that the idea of whether or not it was a life to you was important (as it is for the 99% of the people I know who argue this issue on either side)...then, when you couldn't support your position you told us you were the only ones producing facts and evidence...and then said it didn't matter anyway. andy, certainly you can see how nonsensical that is...

3. your belief system? no one is saying you can't change your belief system...your belief system never changed. at one minute you were arguing how we were all fools for thinking this mass of cells was "life." and the next you were saying that didn't matter anyway...and then you arrived at the neat conclusion that it didn't matter if it was life...a woman has the right to kill if it inconveniences her based on some arbitrary timelines...timelines that previously existed to distinguish when it was and was not life.