Nope. All uses in class x still means all. However, not everything (like tylonel) gets included in class x. There is still no reasonable way to interpret all as anything but all. What else could it mean? Some? That's just silly.

Let's try this again for really, reaaaaally slow people.

"Every X is Y"
"Not every X is Y"

Do you think the first statement is the same as the second?

Same here. While technically alcohol is a drug, most people say "drugs and alcohol" as if they are different, which makes sense as it reflects the different legal status. In the quote the pope speaks about "illicit drugs and alcohol abuse". The point being that there is this rejection of every type of illicit drug use and legalization of drugs however limited - ostensibly due to addiction reasons - yet no rational for why alcohol should not be included in the same analysis.

still pushing dogma and false propaganda I see....

I don't think it is the same thing. We have another word "rusmiddel" that is used to identify all intoxicating recreational drugs (alcohol included).

Depending on the language the pope was using, he might be unfairly translated.

Someone jumped the gun...

Of course it's silly. Except when all does mean some, like where you provide your own examples of such situations.

Again, if you want to say that people who are taking prescription medications after surgery are recreational drug users, more power to you.

Then why do you keep perversing the english language trying to force the opposite of a word in its stead? This isn't some accidental hyperbole, he thrice makes a categorical claim about a class of drugs and you are sitting back thinking that the categorical claim isn't actually categorical. He didn't mince words. "However limited" "any type" "every type". All three categorical. Not one of them with a "some".

You seem to have great difficulty processing this. Prescription medications for prescription use are clearly not in the class of drug uses he is referring to. Neither is Tylonel. Neither is Soda. There is exactly zero indication the pope is referring in to any of these. For the things he is referring to, however, everything in that class falls to his categorical claims. Every still means every - shocker.

What is this, the tenth consecutive "argument" in a row where you don't make any shred of a substantive point but instead argue some irrelevant semantic point where you take some bizarre and highly unorthodox meaning of "slippery slope" or "double standard" or "man made god" and now, the king of the list, "every"?

I've asked it many times now. Do you think in the case of pot that the pope thinks every* type of pot use is to be rejected?

*the standard definition of every, not the Aaron fantasyland definition of every.

The Pope hasn't done this. MB has stated

In any case it seems inconsistent to call shame on the Pope for wanting all recreational drugs to be treated the same in a thread where you are simultaneously calling the Pope guilty of a double standard for not treating all recreational drugs the same.

I asked MB this question so I understand his position given that he believes all recreational drugs should either be illegal or legal.

What's apparent is that you are so invested in this subject that you're just responding without thinking which makes me not particularly interested in engaging with you on this.

Someone is as bad at reading sarcasm as he is at reading context. It's not like I used that same rhetorical device several times in my last several posts.

He doesn't mince words, and every means every. Yet you allow yourself to make classes of recreational drugs (so that alcohol can be included) that aren't included in every, such as caffeine. And if he's talking about illicit drugs, then he's not talking about alcohol, as that's not illicit. In one case, you're making an exception because he's "clearly" not talking about that item in the class of recreational drugs. In the other case, you want to include something that's outside of the reach of the definition (illicit drugs exclude alcohol) in order to advance your claim.

Right. Even though those drugs are recreational drugs and so that this is a type of recreational drug usage, and hence the logic indicates the Pope is against it because he's against all types of recreational drug usages. He allows some types of recreational drug usage, such as when it's legitimately prescribed. But other that those types of recreational drug usage, he means all types of recreational drug usages.

Right, because the meaning of "no to all drugs" doesn't actually mean "all" drugs.

Right. Because "all recreational drugs" doesn't actually include all recreational drugs. Clearly, caffeine usage as a recreational drug usage is exempted.

The only thing that would indicate that the Pope is referring to these is the position that "every means every."

Shocker! Every means every... except for those things not included in the every.

You're the one who is arguing from the fundy "every means every" position. That makes you the one who is trying to make a point with irrelevant semantics. I have three specific ways in which you reject "every means every" but yet you're still arguing from that position.

I also argue the fundy "green means green" and "human means human" position. It is only these hippie new age folks bastardizing the bible who think things like "green means not green" and "human means not human".

Your only real objection to the obvious fact that every actually does mean every is the various colourful variants of "but but but Tylonel" I won't bother requoting. You are certainly right that contextually the phrase doesn't apply to Tylonel, but that isn't because every has changed its meaning - how could it?. Every still means every. It is just that the class of things to which the every applies doesn't include Tylonel. It is a bit unfortunate that the Pope didn't explicitly describe the class of drug uses he was applying the "every" to - just "so called recreational" and "illicit" but it should be pretty obvious to everyone he isn't talking about Tylonel.

For instance, in the case of pot he is clearly rejecting every type of pot use. Do you deny this (you ignored the second post) above? He is rejecting legalization of pot however limited. As soon as the class we are talking about is locked down - pot in this case - the only reasonable interpretation is that every use of it is to be rejected. The only ambiguity here is whether the class includes Tylonel and these other things, but the tiniest bit of contextual awareness is sufficient to reject this.

Let's try it one more way. Consider the sentence "every bounded subset of the real numbers has a least upper bound". It isn't a failure of "every" that the sentence doesn't apply to non bounded subsets of the reals, or cats. It is a statement about every member of a particular class. Your error is that you are confusing a restriction on the set of objects under consideration (ie pot but not tylonel) with the quantifier "every" meaning something it doesn't. For a different class, say subsets of the reals, one might say "some such subsets have least upper bounds". But "every" hasn't magically started meaning "some", it is just a different class of objects under consideration and the truth of the statement requires a different quantifier.

One sec, now I'm lost. I think he is using the standard english phrase "drugs and alcohol". Yes, alcohol is a drug, but (mainly because of the different legal standard) people say "drugs and alcohol" and not just "drugs". In particular he used the phrase "illicit drugs and alcohol abuse". Is that what you are asking?

Sure he has. His position is that (except, oddly alcohol) all of these drugs be illegal, as in he is "disallowing all recreational drugs without regard for their effects", exactly what you said?

Well it is two separate criticisms, to be sure. Firstly, there is the criticism of just lumping all recreational drugs together and not differentiating pot as substantively different from the others. Secondly, given how he has done this for everything but alcohol, why on earth is alcohol not included? What would be much better would be to, as yourself, consider the effects of the various drugs and make similar laws for drugs of similar effect. Saying "all recreational drugs but alcohol" is doubly bad.

The except oddly alcohol is precisely why he hasn't done this. The point was directed at MB because he explicitly stated it.

It's really easy for those knowledgable of the differences to assume others are or should be. It's also easy in our relatively safe lives with our personal ounce to interpret the safety of weed through our own lens. It's certainly something I've done across my 30+ years of fairly regular use.

However I do understand that the Pope considers his mission the poorest and I have no doubts that drug use hits the poorest hardest. Not only in determining the ways in which drugs are used but the outlook on life they contribute to. The Pope is Argentinian, the effects of drug use across south and central america are pretty well documented. I think Uruguay's stance is correct and I think the Pope is wrong with regard to weed but I also think his position is understandable and defensible. If I cede the double standard, and I can't say I'm that bothered, it's to reduce the meaning of it drastically.

I am interested in MB's position though, I actually think it a more interesting discussion the idea that there should not be any distinction between recreational drugs legal and illegal and they should all have the same legal status. I don't think weed needs to be legal because alcohol is nor do I think we should either legalise heroin or ban alcohol. This is consistent with MB's reply to me and one the earlier question about my own double standard was intended to explore.

fwiw I think you're smart and you're one of the posters I've learned from during my time here, I don't think your posts in this thread are to your usual standard despite me having some sympathy for a lot of your claims.

I did some research. It turns out the Vatican makes transcript of all papal speeches in their actual language. The article references a speech made in IDEC (a law enforcement conference) this year (http://m.vatican.va/content/francesc...onference.html). This speech was made in Italian. He references in this speech a sermon given in general audienc on May 7th (http://m.vatican.va/content/francesc...-generale.html). This one was made in English.

Findings:
I can not find the term "recreational" in either speech. This is an addition made by the writer of the news article. Contrary to what has been claimed repeatedly in this thread he does not mention Uruguy or Colorado, this is an extrapolation in the newsarticle by the atheistrepublic.com. He does not mention any specific drugs (like Marijuana), this is also an extrapolation. He does not exempt alcohol in the speeches. He uses an expression that translates to "there is no place for drugs; there is no place for alcohol abuse and other addictions", not "there is no place for drugs; there is no place for alcohol addiction".

In short summary the pope's speech is not fairly paraphrased. The headline of this thread can not be said to be correct; there are legalization and treatment debates in Europe that are not about Marijuana, he might as well be referring to these. He is definitely speaking in general terms.

This thread is a good example of why news articles are not always the best sources. MB's further paraphrasing and extrapolation also distorted the original message even more.

Id bet hes not ok with non abusive use of drugs and is ok with non abusive use of alcohol. Just a guess.

I think that this is an accident of happenstance, that alcohol, specifically wine, happened to be the main tipple at the time that the bible was written and also that there have been many political and financial machinations since then that have ended up with the situation we have now. The story of how marijuana became illegal is a particularity interesting example of corruption and greed, but that's another conversation. (If you're interested, check out Andrew Mellon, his investments in Standard oil and oil patents and how he caused marijuana to become 'demonised')

He hasn't explicitly requested people not to use it, like he has with all the other recreational drugs. The CC's instruction as you know is to not be 'in thrall' to it which is a tacit acknowledgment that it's ok to use it.

I don't think that their effects are the pertinent issue, I think it's a question of having regard for people and allowing them to make the choice. If you can legally kill yourself with alcohol, why not be able to do it with other drugs too? Perhaps better education and sensible use is the answer, not prohibition.

Yes. Can I ask a question of you? By what criteria are you deciding what should and shouldn't be legal?

You have no idea how much research I did on this. You think I just read one article and took it at face value? Here is an English translation of his entire address, taken from the Vatican radio website:

Pope: No to recreational and substitute drugs in combating addiction

[1] So, firstly, he did mention 'recreational drugs'

[2] "Attempts, however limited, to legalize so-called “recreational drugs”[1], are not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint"

Can I prove [2] is a reference to the legalisation of marijuana in places like Uruguay, Washington and Colorado? No. Is it obviously a reference to them? I believe so.

[3] This is the double standard. 'No to any kind of drug use' except alcohol, which is clearly ok.

I thought you understood my argument. Now we're back here with this misunderstanding? I'm not even going to try and untangle this twisted version of what I'm saying, I've tried so hard I don't know how else to say it anymore.

First me, now Uke. Despite the fact that you still don't understand my argument, after a mind numbing number of attempts to clarify it, I'm still willing to engage with you. For the record, Uke is one of the people who has understood my argument, along with Neeel and Batair. You are talking past both of us because of your misunderstanding.

I'm guessing about 10 seconds.

Perhaps, I don't know. He has been vocal before against the use of alcohol.

The speech given here is not correctly represented in this thread, however. The context is a speech at a conference for drug enforcement agencies, which of course dictates some of the rhetoric around the use of the word "droga" (drugs/dope).

The claimed references to specific regions or drugs, as previously claimed in this thread, do not exist. The specific words people have latched on to ("recreational") are artifacts of translation not present in the original Italian. He uses the word "leggere" which mean "light".

The 'use' or the 'abuse'? Please quote the sources, I think that you're extrapolating incorrectly and not correctly representing what he said.

Are you serious TD? Let's suppose that you're correct and it means 'light' and not 'recreational' exactly, and that the Vatican approved source for the translation of the address that I quoted is incorrect. To what type of drugs do you suppose that the pope is referring? Only 'light' drugs? This is a laughable idea.

When the address explicitly (but hey, maybe they translated this incorrectly too...) refers to 'highly questionable attempts to legalise drugs' (paraphrased), to which attempts do imagine he is referring? How many attempts to legalise drugs are you aware of?

Everyone else is fine with the understanding that he's referring to recreational drugs like marijuana, why aren't you?

A more correct paraphrase of this part of the speech is "legalization of soft drugs will not solve problems related to abuse".

Which is a sensible statement.

Are you going to back up your claim that the pope has been "vocal before against the use of alcohol." with some sources?

If the pope has expressed a desire that people should not 'use' alcohol, in the same manner that he doesn't want anyone to 'use' drugs, then he would not be guilty of a double standard. That he would implicitly continue to support it's 'use' for CC ceremonies would present a different problem.

I'm going to be more generous than you're being and accept your translation to 'soft drugs' because like the translation to 'light' instead of 'recreational' it actually makes no difference to my view that he's applying a double standard.

In any case, it's your subjective judgement that it's 'sensible'. It may be, it may not be, that's why the debate about that rages on. However, it's completely irrelevant to my viewpoint because until his 'sensible' attitude includes alcohol amongst the drugs that he doesn't want us to 'use', he's applying a double standard.

Yup. Every still means every. But not Tylonel. It's not in the category "every drug."

Most ironic double standard ever, imo.