No, I am not robbing you of any terms. I can say that MB is necessarily wrong about the pope's double standard (this follows from logic), but to you I can only say that I disagree with your premise and I think you are wrong.

Consider this: You and me make a new type of non fossil-fuelled car that pollutes as much as a normal car using fossilized fuel (or almost as much, however you want to see it). Would you contend that any attempt to legislate this from going into production must by necessity represent a double standard?

Don't know how well this represents his other posts, but at least here this is spot on.

Heroin is a recreational drug so must be included in a discussion about recreational drugs.

I doubt anyone here would have considered the Pope guilty of a double standard had his comments been directed at heroin rather than cannabis.

Okay. Well then I accuse the pope of a double standard. He is taking two drugs with similar (or alcohol being worse) effects in most factors I would include in any "harm metric", and giving different legislative responses to them. Are you happy with my use of the word here? Because I thought you were saying that even for Hypohol you wouldn't be happy? Remember, my goal here is just to identify the structural form of my criticism in shorthand.

If the only relevant factor to consider was pollution - as in our metric just cherry picks this factor - then yes I would consider it a double standard. Like if the law was the "banning cars that pollute too much act" and banned one car with equal or similar pollution to another it would be a double standard. However, there are other factors in cars to consider. If the car was really unsafe, for instance, or too large for roads or whatever, and it was banned for those reasons, it wouldn't be a double standard.

Probably not, but then, he probably wouldn't give the same argument if he wanted to legalize pot but not heroin. As in, he might then have said "heroin is so dangerous in ways that pot is not, ergo ban the one and let the other be legal" or something to this effect. There really is a meaningful difference between these drugs that might, even in my relatively pro legalization view, lead one to want to ban the one and not the other. But one can't do the same trick for differentiate alcohol as significantly less harmful than pot.

Btw, it is worth noting in passing that I don't think anyone with the exception of NR's silly "moral" argument, has given a meaningful attempt to actually argue that alcohol should be legal but pot illegal. There is a lot of equivocating on various terminology (is this a double standard? does every mean every? etc), but on the substance, nobody is apparently defending the popes view that pot should be illegal and alcohol legal.

Because the argument (untill now) has been carried out on a level where this would have been pointless. It might return to that point.

And I could disagree with that. I could say that the regulation is a result of wanting to control pollution and we don't need to allow another type of vehicle that will potentially cause grievous problems in the future, instead we should learn from the past. Then I could proceed to state that the common car is now sadly ingrained in our culture to a level where we can't apply the same type of regulation towards it.

You might consider this wrong, unethical or a double standard. However, there is no logical implication that we have to agree. We have moved from logic to politics.

No they wouldn't, not from a perspective of comparing their relative properties, but that would be making the same mistake that TD is making wrt to my actual argument. The only property I'm interested in is whether or not they are a recreational drug. Where they fall on a scale of impacts is irrelevant. Do you consider alcohol to be a recreational drug?

To use your heroin example, if the pope said 'no one should ever use drugs, drugs are a 'scourge', except heroin which you can use but just please don't be 'in thrall' to it'. You wouldn't think that was a double standard? Wouldn't you be wondering by what criteria Heroin fails to be classified as a drug in the pope's mind, to be banned with all the other drugs?

Then we agree that taking a different position towards various recreational drugs is inadequate for determining a double standard.

I'd imagine that to society alcohol is significantly more harmful than heroin.

I'm not sure I follow, just to be clear if the Pope condemned a policy to legalise heroin would you be accusing him of a double standard?

That seems to have got lost in the confusion over whether or not I'm claiming recreational drugs to all be equal to each other and the tangential argument that misunderstanding has caused.

What are his reasons for condemning it? By what criteria is he condemning it's use?

Go with me here, I want to see if I can clear the misunderstanding up.


Oh yes, absolutely. It's not only inadequate, it's simply not what I'm doing at all, never have been, it's completely irrelevant. All that's important to my argument is whether or not a substance would be classed as a 'recreational drug', that simple.

Are you accusing the pope of wanting to ban pot because it is a recreational drug?

This is a point I was hoping to get around to at some point. The measures of harm that are being applied are dependent upon conditions in the current reality, such as accessibility and prevalence of use.

A point people are forgetting. In the US the share of Marijuana users are so high that a ban might do more harm than good, as per the commonly cited prohibition of era for alcohol. Though I say might, as the share of Marijuana users are nowhere near as high as the share of alcohol users right before the prohibition era.

In many other countries however, the shares are much smaller and on a level where they could very likely be reasonably maintained by legislation and subsequent political measures.

You should. Do try to be better than the lowest common denominator, as fun as it is to make fun of the lowest common denominator



Okay, sure. Basically what would be happening is that "my" criticism of the hypothetical car bill is structured as a double standard but "your" defense of the hypothetical car bill is structured as something different (that we don't have a cute name for). As in, you are not saying "these two cars are different enough to justify different laws" you are instead giving the argument you typed out. Which might well be a fine argument in this hypothetical world, it just isn't an argument framed in the way the framing of a double standard is.

Probably the best thing for you to say is something like "well yes, it is a double standard. I am giving two different laws for two similar things. However, given the constraints of realpolitik, it is benefitial to society to have this double standard for reasons a,b,c".

So basically I am defending the use of "double standard" to identify the structure of a particular type of criticism. But that doesn't mean it is the ONLY structure one can apply to analyze a situation and you can certainly come up, as you have, arguments that rely on a different structure.

The claim is that he wants to ban recreational drugs because of reasons that include things like addiction. Both pot and alcohol should reasonably fit into that category, however.

Unquestionably. Mainly because it is much, much more common. Ditto pot (we had a quote earlier that more people go to rehab for pot than for other illicit drugs).

because the pope is doing the sweeping statement about recreational drugs, and leaving out alcohol. MB isnt making a sweeping statement about any category.

If MB said, "Recreational drugs should be illegal" and then "heroin should be legal" then yes, he would be using a double standard, because the first statement includes the whole category of recreational drugs.

But hes not, hes not even making a statement about recreational drugs as a whole, hes taking 2 drugs that are in that category, and making a statement about those 2 drugs specifically.

I would of course reject the notion of engaging in a double standard because the realities of the Hypocar and the Actualcar are substantially different, and those would also factor into my decisions.

By implication I would have to view not regulating the Actualcar (in the past) better as an error however. Though not necessarily an error of judgment, it could also merely be up to lack of available knowledge.

MB has explicitly stated that he would not treat all recreational drugs equally. Thus he is in no position to demand that the (paraphrased) pope should do the same.

Either both the pope and MB is engaging in double standards, or none of them are. There is no other logical outcome.

Sure, if you so wished, you can keep the double standard framing and say, as you have, that there IS a meaningful difference between the two (given the realities of society) and thus there IS a justifiable legal difference.

The point of this slightly odd thread is that the phrase is a useful way to identify a particular type of criticism. You are more than welcome to respond by saying no no they really are different in this important way. Or to give an argument that just doesn't fit into that type of structural framing. However, you seem to be rejecting the use of double standard not just in this instance, but rather broadly.

This just doesn't seem to be what his argument is. It isn't MB who is saying "if a drug is of class X, it is to be banned". He may not agree with this at all. But since this is the (paraphrased) version of what the Pope said, the question of whether a drug should be banned in this framing depends on whether it is or is not in class X. The reason it is a double standard is because both pot and alcohol unquestionably fit in class X. However, if MB doesn't accept the condition in the first place, he is not required to use it and thus may use his own condition (something about net harm) to differentiate heroin and pot.

As I said in my first (or second?) post, I think double standard is a very overly used criticism that is very rarely backed up sufficiently. It scores well on the rhetorometer and thus is of course very effective for convincing people and preaching to the choir. The reality however is that people who disagree don't usually share premises. So I think the accusation of double standard can often do great harm, as it ruins the possibility of an honest debate. The rhetorical aim of an accusation of double standard is almost always to try and force the opposition into your premises; usually when they are not present.

I think it is sad if Marijuana is legalized "because alcohol is legal". I think legalization should be based on the actual costs/reward of legalizing Marijuana and an honest analysis of what this might entail in the future.

I should disclaim that I don't consider this a very relevant discussion towards someone of a libertarian viewpoint. As I stated in my first post:

Right, this is part I just don't see. To have an honest debate, one should identify the types of criticism that is being leveled. I might give any number of fallacies and unjustified premises and mistakes that I think you are making in your argument. You could then reject those and explain how you are not, in fact, committing a particular mistake. What would make it an honest debate is that we go back and forth trying to understand each others views and identify where we agree and disagree. However, the simple fact that I identify a particular type of error I think you are making doesn't prevent an honest debate...in fact it is rather useful to be able to do so! So if I accuse you of using a double standard, this isn't a rhetorical preach to the choir that shuts down all future debate, it lets you know the nature of my criticism and you can certainly respond to that criticism as you did in the hypocar example. If you prefer, I could type out "different conclusions based on similar situations" each time, but "double standard" is shorter and more efficient.


Sure, I don't disagree. However, the comparison is fairly useful against a lot of bad arguments people give (but not, against what I am guessing is the argument you are going to use if you ever get around to typing it out). As in, a lot of the common arguments against pot legalization are arguments that would also imply alcohol should have the same legal status. In particular, the pope hasn't given an argument that allows him to differentiate between the two yet has this view. Is it possible to come up with a utilitarian analysis modelling your hypocar example? Sure. But if someone like you does that, you probably wont see me responding with "but but alcohol!". If you give an argument that is sensitive to this, I would respond that way.