Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana

07-10-2014 , 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
Well, now you are stuck in a loop. I can only respond by once again referring to your own OP:

It is there. Written with your own words. There isn't much more to say.
Where in that does it say that I think recreational drugs should be treated equally? I.e. Heroin and marijuana should be treated as if they were equal in their properties/characteristics etc. Show me any of my posts where I've done that.

I simply don't get why you can't understand what you're not understanding, I've explained it every which way I can and even resorted to an analogy, but it's like you're not reading my posts. I mean really, are you trolling me?

I had hoped to get you involved in this TD but I don't think it's going to happen.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Where in that does it say that I think recreational drugs should be treated equally? I.e. Heroin and marijuana should be treated as if they were equal in their properties/characteristics etc. Show me any of my posts where I've done that.

I simply don't get why you can't understand what you're not understanding, I've explained it every which way I can and even resorted to an analogy, but it's like you're not reading my posts. I mean really, are you trolling me?

I had hoped to get you involved in this TD but I don't think it's going to happen.
I am certainly not "trolling" you. You clearly stated that two drugs should be treated equally because they are both recreational. This implies that recreational drugs should be treated equally.

Instead of rephrasing your case, you have now opted for employing a double standard. You are allowing yourself to exempt from the term "recreational drugs" anything that does not fit your case, but you are not allowing the pope (or rather the paraphrased pope) to do the same.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 10:32 AM
MB, as per your complaint that the pope did not "include alcohol", was this done by omission, or did he actually explicitly state the difference? Or is this more an observation of the CC's stance on alcohol in general?
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 10:35 AM
I think what MB is saying is

if someone makes a statement about "recreational drugs" then MB expects that to include alcohol.

So there is the category "recreational drugs". A statement can be made, like "all recreational drugs should be illegal", and this should include alcohol . Alternatively, you can say "heroin should be illegal, but not pot" and this says nothing about alcohol, even though both are classed as recreational drugs.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel
I think what MB is saying is

if someone makes a statement about "recreational drugs" then MB expects that to include alcohol.

So there is the category "recreational drugs". A statement can be made, like "all recreational drugs should be illegal", and this should include alcohol . Alternatively, you can say "heroin should be illegal, but not pot" and this says nothing about alcohol, even though both are classed as recreational drugs.
I think the counter-argument was that since many make a distinction between pot and heroin, why is the pope not allowed to make a distinction between alcohol and pot?
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel
I think what MB is saying is

if someone makes a statement about "recreational drugs" then MB expects that to include alcohol.

So there is the category "recreational drugs". A statement can be made, like "all recreational drugs should be illegal", and this should include alcohol . Alternatively, you can say "heroin should be illegal, but not pot" and this says nothing about alcohol, even though both are classed as recreational drugs.
The problem is MB's overall argument. His case as lain out in the OP is that recreational drugs should be treated equally, by not doing so the pope is engaging in a double standard.

Later on this poses a problem for MB, as drugs like caffeine and heroin are also recreational drugs. Presumably MB does not want to allow 4 year olds to buy alcohol (they can buy caffeine by for example purchasing a Pepsi). Nobody has a problem with understanding that. So he now exempts these from his original statement of recreational drugs, so the original argument will still fit.

The problem now is that he does not allow the paraphrased pope the same liberty. If MB was consistent he would now have to conclude that the paraphrased pope was not engaging in a double standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
I think the counter-argument was that since many make a distinction between pot and heroin, why is the pope not allowed to make a distinction between alcohol and pot?
Yes, this states it far more clearly.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
The problem is MB's overall argument. His case as lain out in the OP is that recreational drugs should be treated equally, by not doing so the pope is engaging in a double standard.
No, it seems to me that he is saying that when the pope uses the umbrella term, "recreational drugs" , but doesnt include alcohol which is a recreational drug, that he is engaging in a double standard.

Quote:
Later on this poses a problem for MB, as drugs like caffeine and heroin are also recreational drugs. Presumably MB does not want to allow 4 year olds to buy alcohol (they can buy caffeine by for example purchasing a Pepsi). Nobody has a problem with understanding that. So he now exempts these from his original statement of recreational drugs, so the original argument will still fit.
No, because he hasnt stated, "all recreational drugs should be treated equally" , what he is getting at is that "in any statement on the category "recreational drugs", alcohol should be included in that statement"

Its a matter of categories.
So, if you make a sweeping statement about "recreational drugs", then yes, all things in that category should have that sweeping statement applied to them. But you can also take 2 specific recreational drugs, and distinguish between them, in which case you are not talking about the category "recreational drugs", even though both are recreational drugs.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
I am certainly not "trolling" you. You clearly stated that two drugs should be treated equally because they are both recreational. This implies that recreational drugs should be treated equally.

Instead of rephrasing your case, you have now opted for employing a double standard. You are allowing yourself to exempt from the term "recreational drugs" anything that does not fit your case, but you are not allowing the pope (or rather the paraphrased pope) to do the same.
No way, I'm not having that. Throughout the thread I've been very careful to be consistent in how I've phrased this. What I've clearly stated, numerous times is this:

"two drugs should be treated equally AS RECREATIONAL DRUGS because they are both recreational drugs"

The problem is that the pope NOT doing that with alcohol, he's treating it differently. He doesn't seem to include it as a recreational drug.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
His case as lain out in the OP is that recreational drugs should be treated equally, by not doing so the pope is engaging in a double standard.
You have misunderstood my OP. This is not what I said at all, it's how you've interpreted what I said. Now, this isn't advancing the discussion at all and I'm done trying to explain it to you.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel
I think what MB is saying is

if someone makes a statement about "recreational drugs" then MB expects that to include alcohol.

So there is the category "recreational drugs". A statement can be made, like "all recreational drugs should be illegal", and this should include alcohol . Alternatively, you can say "heroin should be illegal, but not pot" and this says nothing about alcohol, even though both are classed as recreational drugs.
Exactly what I'm saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel
No, it seems to me that he is saying that when the pope uses the umbrella term, "recreational drugs" , but doesnt include alcohol which is a recreational drug, that he is engaging in a double standard.
Again, exactly right.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Exactly what I'm saying.


Again, exactly right.
If you don't have a problem with someone saying that heroin should be illegal, but not pot, why can't someone say that pot should be illegal but not alcohol?

I'm not arguing for or against, just trying to better understand you.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
I think the counter-argument was that since many make a distinction between pot and heroin, why is the pope not allowed to make a distinction between alcohol and pot?
Because we're not talking about the differences between recreational drugs, we're (trying) to talk about the fact that is alcohol is also recreational drug, it should be included in statements about recreational drugs. It should be treated equally AS a recreational drug, it is NOT the equal of all other recreational drugs.

Here's an analogy:

Cars are evil, the answer to the use of cars is not cars, and their use should be banned, totally. Cars are a scourge. It's ok to drive a Mercedes as long as you are not 'in thrall ' to it.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Cars are evil, the answer to the use of cars is not cars, and their use should be banned, totally. Cars are a scourge. It's ok to drive a Mercedes as long as you are not 'in thrall ' to it.
Ok, let's try cars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Since Mercedes meets the criteria for what defines a car, I consider it a recreational car. So, when the pope condemns the legalisation of recreational cars, from my perspective, this is engaging in a significant double standard since the use of Mercedes is common in the CC and is permitted amongst it's followers. Why isn't Mercedes 'evil' too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Where in that does it say that I think recreational cars should be treated equally? I.e. Ford and Chevrolet should be treated as if they were equal in their properties/characteristics etc. Show me any of my posts where I've done that.

This is still not working, sorry.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Because we're not talking about the differences between recreational drugs, we're (trying) to talk about the fact that is alcohol is also recreational drug, it should be included in statements about recreational drugs.
The pope obviously makes a distinction, as do many people. Everyone draws a line somewhere, as it was pointed out in the use of caffeine and tylenol.

Your problem then is with the line the pope draws, that you don't think is appropriate. He should include alcohol, but because he doesn't it is a double-standard.

This right so far?
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel
So, if you make a sweeping statement about "recreational drugs", then yes, all things in that category should have that sweeping statement applied to them. But you can also take 2 specific recreational drugs, and distinguish between them, in which case you are not talking about the category "recreational drugs", even though both are recreational drugs.
And why can't the pope do this?

The OP (written by Mightyboosh) explicitly states that the pope is employing a double a standard by doing what you describe here. So (by MB's logic) either the Pope and Mightyboosh are both employing double standards, or none of them are.

Exempting oneself from one's own logic is very bad form.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Wow.... you're doing that thing that fundamentalists do. "Every" means "every" "every" single time "every" is used. It's a stupid way to read things. It's especially stupid as it pertains to rhetorical phrasings.

See how hard you have to push this "every" means "every" angle in order for your position to work? That's a fundy-level of intellectual engagement.
ahahahahhahahahahahaha. This is awesome. Only in Aaron fantasy land would one thinking the word every actually means every and the word any actually means any be something fundamentalists do. Except perhaps when people are being hyperbolic, every actually does mean every. What else would it mean? Some? My goodness.

Your equivocations aren't about the word every. It still means every. What is happening is that we are saying "everything in some class" but what in effect you are doing is changing the class of things in consideration. Whatever the answer to the class of things is, it is very clear that every member of that class gets included. Now as much as you seem to like to try this, nobody believes he is talking about tylonel and soda. We can debate what, exactly, gets included in recreational drugs (or what gets included in "so called recreation drugs" although you STILL haven't give a single example of a drug use where the one expression applies and the other doesn'), but we can make it easier by restricting to the illicit drugs and seeing what the phrase means for that.

Quote:
Note very carefully, the term illicit implies illegality.

Do you think the Pope should be endorsing that people do illegal activities?
Indeed. The point is to exclude you trying to question whether we can include tylonel or not. Let's deal with your cute little dodge first. The question is whether or not to make things like pot legal, and he is giving a justification (speaking about drug addiction) that it should remain illegal. So no, his argument is nothing like "don't do this because it is illegal", it is explicitly a question of whether it should or should not be illegal based on other factors like drug addiction.

So here is the big point: In the context of illicit drugs, what else does "no to every type of illicit drug use" mean except actually meaning no to every type of illicit drug use? Does it mean "yes to some types of illicit drug use"? If so, please specify a type of illicit drug use where the pope thinks it is okay. Give an example where every doesn't actually mean every in this situation.

Let's go one step more restrictive: let's make the context just pot. So the phrase is "no to every type of pot use". Does every still mean every? Is there some types of pot use he accepts and some types he doesn't? Or does every actually mean every and he is actually rejecting every type of pot use?





Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
It's true that he probably is against medicinal marijuana. But I haven't seen anything explicit on that topic (barring your "every" means "every" "every" single time position -- which is ludicrous).
In this very paragraph he rejects legalization no matter "however limited". I suppose we could think he is just horribly distorting language and actually means "however limited except for limitations on just medical marijuana" but much like every meaning some this would be a bizarre twisting of basic language.

But let's step back a bit. Why do you guess that this is true? If your interpretation is correct - that his phrase only applies to drug addiction - why on earth would you think it is true? If you don't think medical marijuana would be accepted, presumably you also don't think he accepts casual smokers who take the occasional puff in a safe environment the way someone has a glass or two of wine with dinner once a week. But why do you think this? The reason *I* think this is because he has given a strongly emphasized categorical rejection of any limited legalization and says no to any/every type of such drug use. But if you don't interpret it categorically, how do you determine his views on anything like this?
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
And why can't the pope do this?

The OP (written by Mightyboosh) explicitly states that the pope is employing a double a standard by doing what you describe here. So (by MB's logic) either the Pope and Mightyboosh are both employing double standards, or none of them are.

The consequence of making logical arguments is logical consequences.
Think MB previously said that he thinks all drugs should be legal, thus omitting him from the double-standard.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
Think MB previously said that he thinks all drugs should be legal, thus omitting him from the double-standard.
This is irrelevant since he makes a point about not having stated that all recreational drugs should be treated equally.

Accusing somebody of a double standard is (in my book) very hard criticism. As I said in my very first post in this thread it is an argument that gets thrown around far too lightly and usually with very little argument to back it up. This is also the case in this thread.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
This is irrelevant since he makes a point about not having stated that all recreational drugs should be treated equally.
Okay, we're back on the same page.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
I am not "mad" and I am not "hounding" you.
I didn't say you were. I'm not taking you seriously, but those were mightybooshes words. Most of his words are ridiculous.



Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
INor have I contested anything and I have not asked for how to find information. The only thing I have done is ask you two linked questions regarding your basis for your statement that marijuana is a drug with a low risk of addiction. You have responded with sarcasm every time.

When you can't take critical questions seriously, you really need to start evaluating where you are at.
I take it as "well known" and if it is contested - which you are emphatically avoiding doing - then I'll go and do the literature search to try and quantify precisely the relative addiction rates, but until then I will rest on that it is well known.

Why are you asking? If you are curious about the statement yourself, then look it up. I would have to, and I'm not particularly curious, so if you are curious then you can do the googling. If you are challenging the statement as false, then say so, and present some facts why, and then we can go into the literature. Either way, I don't feel compelled to do a proper literature search unless you are putting in some effort here as well, particularly since it is unimportant to my larger point.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
Accusing somebody of a double standard is (in my book) very hard criticism.
Never really felt it this way. Aaron is with you, however, he compared it to bigotry. This was my response:

Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
Don't really think "double standard" has remotely comparable emotional impact to "bigot" or whatever. Its use in the conversation is to identify a particular fallacy the same way I might accuse you of using a post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy or whatever. It is useful to be able to identify the specific manner of the criticism. In this case, using the word double standard is meant to convey the idea of different treatments for similar things. If you prefer not to use the shorthand and just type that out every time then sure. But it shouldn't be interpreted as the same kind of emotionally charged accusation that being a racist is. I maintain that this is both an orthodox and useful use of the word.
I think it is mainly useful as a way of identifying the structural nature of the type of critique that one is leveling, just as we often do any time we identify the structural nature of the error we think the other person is making.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 12:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
If you don't have a problem with someone saying that heroin should be illegal, but not pot, why can't someone say that pot should be illegal but not alcohol?
It has to do with the nature of the substances. Heroin can be argued to be significantly worse than pot or alcohol, and that these characteristics put it into a category different than pot or alcohol. However with pot and alcohol, it is very difficult to take seriously an argument that puts pot as significantly worse than alcohol (although the other direction is possible). So if we are framing our view that things with worse levels of harm can get different legal frameworks, one can make this difference for heroin from pot and alcohol but not between pot and alcohol. It becomes a double standard because the difference (measured in this "causes harm" metric) is small, in fact alcohol seems worse, yet the legal status is wildly different. Since it is a different treatment for something that seems similar, it hits the definition of a double standard.

Deregs was arguing earlier that well hey this is uke_master's view of the world, so it might be a double standard to him, but maybe the pope has some other view - which he hasn't specified - so in that the metric is different for pot and alcohol and so for him it isn't a double standard. Well okay, if he can give use a metric, but he hasn't.

This is roughly my view, btw, too. I think pot is safe enough that it is entirely acceptable and probably even normative for a lot of uses (certainly medically, but even just for quality of life things for the larger public). So I definitely think it should be legal. However for heroin it is so dangerous I want to be very careful. I am open to the idea that legalization with some major programs might be the most effective way to curb its usage, but I am definitely wanting to treat it differently as a social problem where one is actively trying to maximally curb its usage in a way I'm just not doing with pot and alcohol. And this is all based on the metric of harm caused by the different drugs.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
Never really felt it this way. Aaron is with you, however, he compared it to bigotry. This was my response:

I think it is mainly useful as a way of identifying the structural nature of the type of critique that one is leveling, just as we often do any time we identify the structural nature of the error we think the other person is making.
Your argument is substantially different from that of Mightyboosh. I'm sure his intended case is similar to yours, but he is refusing to relinquish his own OP that states that the the pope must treat different recreational drugs equally lest he engage in a double standard. Yet MB himself is not prepared to do the same.

Your argument on the other hand is that the measurable difference in risk between two specified drugs does not make it logical to ban one and legalize the other.

Your argument is better in the sense that it does not defy logic, I do not agree with it however. But that is a debate on soundness, not validity. Case in point: I would not even agree that if we made a drug Hypohol that is equal to alchohol in all respects (except chemical makeup) that it would necessarily be a double standard to not legalize it.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
And why can't the pope do this?

The OP (written by Mightyboosh) explicitly states that the pope is employing a double a standard by doing what you describe here. So (by MB's logic) either the Pope and Mightyboosh are both employing double standards, or none of them are.

Exempting oneself from one's own logic is very bad form.
From almost your first contribution ITT you've (uncharacteristically) failed to understand the argument in the OP. At this point I give up, sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
Okay, we're back on the same page.
Shame because it's the wrong page.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
The pope obviously makes a distinction, as do many people. Everyone draws a line somewhere, as it was pointed out in the use of caffeine and tylenol.
Yes, and I've said many times ITT, it's a false distinction. You must include alcohol in a conversation about drugs, because it's a drug. You must include it a conversation about recreational drugs, because it's a recreational drug.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
Your problem then is with the line the pope draws, that you don't think is appropriate. He should include alcohol, but because he doesn't it is a double-standard.

This right so far?
Yes. He's applying principles to drugs like marijuana that cause him to think that they should be banned. I don't think he's applying those same principles to alcohol and he should be because it is also a recreational drug. Alcohol and marijuana are similar in their recreational use, and that they're both drugs. How then can the pope not ban alcohol too?

If I ban cars because they're evil, how can I not also ban Mercedes? (The popemobile is a Mercedes)
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
Case in point: I would not even agree that if we made a drug Hypohol that is equal to alchohol in all respects (except chemical makeup) that it would necessarily be a double standard to not legalize it.
I think you are basically robbing us of a useful phrase in the english language. As in, if something is identical in all respects (but is metaphorically painted a different colour to differentiate it) and still doesn't become a double standard when treated differently, then we will never be able to say anything is a double standard. Which is consistent, at least, because you don't like that that it is used too often and too loosely which makes sense if you are demanding an impossibly high threshold of similarity before one can get to necessarily claim double standard.

I want to be able to identify this type of structure: two things that are similar in an appropriate sense and get treated differently. We then get to debate whether they actually are or are not similar enough to justify the different treatment, but it shouldn't be a debate over whether it is or is not a double standard in and of itself. Saying double standard just identifies this structure of similar things with different treatments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
I'm sure his intended case is similar to yours, but he is refusing to relinquish his own OP that states that the the pope must treat different recreational drugs equally lest he engage in a double standard.
Did he? I read it as saying since the pope had come up with this class of condemning legalization of recreational drugs, membership in that class is all that is needed to condemn legalization. Yet for unknown and probably spurious reasons alcohol is not included in the class. So despite meeting the standard for similarity (is it a recreational drug) it is treated differently, and hence a double standard. As in, it is not that we treat all recreational drugs equally for all considerations, but that we have a sufficient condition specifically for making it illegal but this sufficient condition, while being met by alcohol, is exempted.

Not having read every one of his posts, I might (and would hope) that I am phrasing it better than he is. But that is the point of honest debate, at least, to try to bring out the better arguments, not to lock people into the worst arguments.

Last edited by uke_master; 07-10-2014 at 12:31 PM.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-10-2014 , 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
From almost your first contribution ITT you've (uncharacteristically) failed to understand the argument in the OP. At this point I give up, sorry.
It is very easy to understand.

1) You say alcohol and cannabis should be treated equally because they are recreational drugs.
2.) You later proceed to say you have never stated that all recreational drugs should be treated equally.

These two do not add up. It is not a failure on my part, but simply a paradox of your own making. Your continued insistence that I am somehow trolling you by bringing this up says more about you than me.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote

      
m