• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prop Numbers Assigned, Marijuana Ballot Measure is Prop 19

Zyphlin said:
Ah, you're correct, they were turned down in 2003. In that instance sex was sex.

So yep, my analogy doesn't work. However I can't help but notice you didn't in any way touch the fact that I showed the amazing error in judgement and complete nonsense that was your analogy.
Click to expand...

I knew my anaology was ignorant when I made it.
The whole point was responding to an ignorant proposition with another one.
 
Caine said:
I knew my anaology was ignorant when I made it.
The whole point was responding to an ignorant proposition with another one.
Click to expand...

What exactly is ignorant in the notion that Marijuana is less addictive and less harmful to the body than Alcohol and Nictoine, and thus should be legalized or the others should be banned, if they wish to be consistant?

Ignorance emplies a lack of knowledge. Are you suggesting they don't have knowledge that marijuana is actually MORE addictive and harmful? If so please present such info. Is it ignorant because they're lacking the knowledge that laws don't have to be consistant? That wouldn't make sense, because the person isn't suggesting that all laws are consistant but would simply want them to be consistant on that.

Please, enlighten us to exactly how its ignorant. Proclaiming "that's ignorant" and giving nothing to back it up doesn't do that...though the failure to produce an actual argument does speak to ones own ignorance on the topic perhaps.
 
Zyphlin said:
What exactly is ignorant in the notion that Marijuana is less addictive and less harmful to the body than Alcohol and Nictoine, and thus should be legalized or the others should be banned, if they wish to be consistant?

Ignorance emplies a lack of knowledge. Are you suggesting they don't have knowledge that marijuana is actually MORE addictive and harmful? If so please present such info. Is it ignorant because they're lacking the knowledge that laws don't have to be consistant? That wouldn't make sense, because the person isn't suggesting that all laws are consistant but would simply want them to be consistant on that.

Please, enlighten us to exactly how its ignorant. Proclaiming "that's ignorant" and giving nothing to back it up doesn't do that...though the failure to produce an actual argument does speak to ones own ignorance on the topic perhaps.
Click to expand...

I swear to god I'm going to pistol whip the next person who says shenanigans ignorant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom