1
   

What's your take on the War on Drugs?

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 11:25 am
Joe, if I understand you correctly; you accept that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and your only argument is that it is controllable. Can you give any example of its use being controlled? If anyone who wants some can get some, how is that less futile than alcohol prohibition?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 04:32 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Joe, if I understand you correctly; you accept that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and your only argument is that it is controllable.

No, you don't understand me correctly. I have never said that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol. Frankly, I have no idea why you don't understand this, but you clearly don't. To refresh your recollection, here is what I've said about the equivalence of marijuana and alcohol:

Post 496581: "I am perfectly willing to concede, for the purposes of discussion, that marijuana is as harmful as tobacco and/or alcohol."

Post 508320: "I conceded only what I conceded: marijuana is as harmful as tobacco and/or alcohol."

Post 510009: "Remember, I conceded that marijuana is as harmful as alcohol."

So Bill, repeat after me: marijuana is as harmful as alcohol. Not less harmful, AS harmful.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Can you give any example of its use being controlled? If anyone who wants some can get some, how is that less futile than alcohol prohibition?

Ah, Bill, I asked a few questions of my own in my previous post. You didn't answer any of them, yet you expect me to answer yours? That's hardly fair.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 04:41 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
I've already done that by telling him that the rationales behind these laws really do not stand up to scrutiny -- and asking him to discuss those rationales.

As you can see, he has declined.

I don't blame him!

Frank, I didn't decline to discuss any rationales behind the drug laws; seeing as how you never bothered to mention a single one, there was simply no discussion to decline. Since you seem to think that all the rationales are flawed, surely you could specify one that you'd be willing to discuss. Or, failing that, you could follow up on Craven's advice: it didn't do him much good but maybe you'll have better luck with it.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 05:17 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
According to my encyclopedia: Marijuana has been known to have been used as early as 3,000 BC. Native Americans were smoking it before any Chinese Junk-boats, Vikings or Spaniards ever showed up. In fact, some Native Americans still smoke it regularly for ceremonial purposes and recreation (as they always have), perfectly legally. So much is it part of their religious beliefs; they are even allowed to smoke it in Prison during regular Religious Ceremonies.

Indians and their practices are part of Western culture?
3,000 BC is parallel to your alcohol for thousands of years. Native Americans smoking during religious ceremonies is parallel to Western culture's religious ceremonies using wine. Especially when you consider freedom of religion and the separation of... issues. Effectively, these two parallels nullify your attempt at separation.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
The 18th Amendment, or Volstead Act began in 1920 . 14 years later came the 21st amendment forever abolishing the 18th. 14 years of this hopeless foolishness. Obviously we've tried to get rid of Marijuana for a hell of a lot longer than that. Same result; utter failure. Hypocrisy.

Is marijuana use as prevalent as alcohol or tobacco use?

No, but very significant none the less. Are you asserting that the current prevalence of alcohol is just above the point of no return? And if so; where did you get that criteria and what is it exactly?

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Secondly, it is easier to grow marijuana than it is to make bath tub gin. It is more easily concealed at border crossings, and harder to detect on a user. So that doesn't work.

So what?

If you are contending it is easier to prohibit, these differences are relevant because they clearly show that it is not.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Not only is alcohol not a "problem", but even if it was you have still shown nothing to separate it from marijuana.

This is an odd assertion coming from someone who has already stated that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana. Of course, if neither is a problem, then you have to justify the existence of any laws regulating the sale or consumption of alcohol.
No Joe, I don't. Not for this debate anyway. You have to show why our current laws don't constitute hypocrisy. We can discuss anything you wish after that.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
That was an interesting angle… I'll give you that. But ultimately, it proved useless even if alcohol was considered a problem, which you never substantiated anyway.

It was never my burden to substantiate that alcohol is a problem. Remember, I conceded that marijuana is as harmful as alcohol. Consequently, its harmfulness is not in need of substantiation; rather, it is a given. Now, if you think that harmful products are not problems, then say so. Likewise, if you think that marijuana and alcohol are completely innocuous, then you should also make that clear..
Neither of those answers are relevant to the debate at hand. You have agreed to demonstrate that our current laws don't constitute hypocrisy. Please stop evading the issue and just do it if you think you can.

I believe that covers all of your questions. I do not see how any of the answers strengthen your case, but... anyway. If your only remaining argument is: marijuana can be controlled; then please provide some proof that it is being controlled. This burden of proof is yours, since you agreed to demonstrate why our current laws don't constitute hypocrisy.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 05:43 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
I've already done that by telling him that the rationales behind these laws really do not stand up to scrutiny -- and asking him to discuss those rationales.

As you can see, he has declined.

I don't blame him!

Frank, I didn't decline to discuss any rationales behind the drug laws; seeing as how you never bothered to mention a single one, there was simply no discussion to decline. Since you seem to think that all the rationales are flawed, surely you could specify one that you'd be willing to discuss. Or, failing that, you could follow up on Craven's advice: it didn't do him much good but maybe you'll have better luck with it.


You are the one who seems to think there is a rationale behind the laws against marijuana.

Pick one or two -- and we'll discuss 'em.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 05:47 pm
Joe,

It didn't do much good because by the time we got bongstar's arguments out of the way the discussion fissled.

If you'd like to make a case for the societal bane that marijuana poses and how that outweights criminalization I would be very interested in reading it.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2004 09:37 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
You are the one who seems to think there is a rationale behind the laws against marijuana.

Pick one or two -- and we'll discuss 'em.

Frank, I'm sure that I'll get around to discussing my reasons for opposing legalization of marijuana, just as soon as I dispense with Bill's argument about "hypocrisy." You can then jump in when you see something you don't like. The way I see it, you have just as much right to do that as you do to eat oatmeal.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2004 09:48 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
You are the one who seems to think there is a rationale behind the laws against marijuana.

Pick one or two -- and we'll discuss 'em.

Frank, I'm sure that I'll get around to discussing my reasons for opposing legalization of marijuana, just as soon as I dispense with Bill's argument about "hypocrisy." You can then jump in when you see something you don't like. The way I see it, you have just as much right to do that as you do to eat oatmeal.


Sounds good to me.

I'm enjoying the give-and-take you are having with Bill.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2004 10:15 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Indians and their practices are part of Western culture?
3,000 BC is parallel to your alcohol for thousands of years. Native Americans smoking during religious ceremonies is parallel to Western culture's religious ceremonies using wine. Especially when you consider freedom of religion and the separation of... issues. Effectively, these two parallels nullify your attempt at separation.

So your answer is "no."

OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Is marijuana use as prevalent as alcohol or tobacco use?
No, but very significant none the less.

Actually, in terms of percentages, marijuana usage is rather insignificant. According to the statistics (2000) found at this pro-legalization site, 8.6% of Americans used marijuana in the past year (occasional users), while 4.7% used marijuana in the past month (regular users). This compares with 62% of the population that used alcohol within the past year, and 46% that used it within the past month. Regular users of alcohol, then, outnumber regular users of marijuana by about 10 to 1. (More recent figures can be found at this website).

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Are you asserting that the current prevalence of alcohol is just above the point of no return? And if so; where did you get that criteria and what is it exactly?

Yes, I assert that alcohol use is at the point where it can no longer be eradicated, or even effectively suppressed. My proof is the Volstead Act.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Secondly, it is easier to grow marijuana than it is to make bath tub gin. It is more easily concealed at border crossings, and harder to detect on a user. So that doesn't work.
joefromchicago wrote:
So what?
If you are contending it is easier to prohibit, these differences are relevant because they clearly show that it is not.

The relative ease with which bathtub gin or weed is produced is largely irrelevant. After all, sniffing glue is even easier than growing weed. What is more important is that the use of marijuana among the general population is at a level where it might still conceivably be eradicated or effectively suppressed.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
No Joe, I don't. Not for this debate anyway. You have to show why our current laws don't constitute hypocrisy. We can discuss anything you wish after that.

Sorry, Bill, but that's exactly what you must do. You've been crying "hypocrisy" all through this discussion, but you've never actually spelled out what it is about the differing legal treatments of alcohol and marijuana that actually constitutes "hypocrisy."

Since I'm fairly confident that you'll continue to avoid this issue unless given some firm guidance, I will make it easier for you. Below is what I consider to be an exhaustive list of the reasons why such disparate legal treatment might be considered "hypocritical:"
(a) both alcohol and marijuana are harmless, and therefore the law should not treat one as more harmful than the other;
(b) alcohol is more harmful than marijuana, and therefore the law should not treat a less harmful substance more harshly than a more harmful substance;
(c) alcohol and marijuana are equally harmful, and therefore the law should not treat equally harmful substances differently;
(d) it doesn't matter how harmful marijuana and alcohol are, the law has no business regulating either of these substances.

NOTE: "all of the above" is not an option, since the above choices are mutually exclusive. Your task, Bill, is to stop whining about "hypocrisy" in the abstract and pick one reason for labelling the current laws "hypocritical."

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Neither of those answers are relevant to the debate at hand. You have agreed to demonstrate that our current laws don't constitute hypocrisy. Please stop evading the issue and just do it if you think you can.

Bill, I can't defend the laws against the charge of "hypocrisy" if I don't know why you're calling them "hypocritical." That's the purpose of the foregoing exercise. If, on the other hand, you want to continue making vague accusations of "hypocrisy" without explaining the nature of the charge, then I suppose I will henceforth be entitled to answer "you're wrong" without providing any explanation for my response.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
If your only remaining argument is: marijuana can be controlled; then please provide some proof that it is being controlled. This burden of proof is yours, since you agreed to demonstrate why our current laws don't constitute hypocrisy.

Presently, regular marijuana use is ten times less prevalent than alcohol use. That strikes me as pretty persuasive evidence that usage is being controlled by the current drug laws.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2004 03:23 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Indians and their practices are part of Western culture?
3,000 BC is parallel to your alcohol for thousands of years. Native Americans smoking during religious ceremonies is parallel to Western culture's religious ceremonies using wine. Especially when you consider freedom of religion and the separation of... issues. Effectively, these two parallels nullify your attempt at separation.

So your answer is "no."
My answer clearly nullifies your attempt at separation of alcohol and marijuana, based on how long it's been used and as whether it is used in religious ceremony. Your introduction of "Western Culture" as a parameter; is yet another transparent attempt to obscure the issue. Your have shown no separation with that point.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Is marijuana use as prevalent as alcohol or tobacco use?
No, but very significant none the less.

Actually, in terms of percentages, marijuana usage is rather insignificant. According to the statistics (2000) found at this pro-legalization site, 8.6% of Americans used marijuana in the past year (occasional users), while 4.7% used marijuana in the past month (regular users). This compares with 62% of the population that used alcohol within the past year, and 46% that used it within the past month. Regular users of alcohol, then, outnumber regular users of marijuana by about 10 to 1. (More recent figures can be found at this website).

For the purposes of this debate; I accept your statistics. 8.6% of Americans equates to 22,360,000 marijuana smokers. 22,360,000! In what twisted reality would 22 million people be considered an insignificant number?

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Are you asserting that the current prevalence of alcohol is just above the point of no return? And if so; where did you get that criteria and what is it exactly?

Yes, I assert that alcohol use is at the point where it can no longer be eradicated, or even effectively suppressed. My proof is the Volstead Act.
I've already drawn similarities between the two prohibitions… But your stats make it even clearer. 734,497 people were arrested for marijuana in the year 2000. According to your own statistics; that is only 3.3% of marijuana smokers. If 8.6% should be considered insignificant; than surely 3.3% should be considered even more insignificant.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Secondly, it is easier to grow marijuana than it is to make bath tub gin. It is more easily concealed at border crossings, and harder to detect on a user. So that doesn't work.
joefromchicago wrote:
So what?
If you are contending it is easier to prohibit, these differences are relevant because they clearly show that it is not.

The relative ease with which bathtub gin or weed is produced is largely irrelevant. After all, sniffing glue is even easier than growing weed. What is more important is that the use of marijuana among the general population is at a level where it might still conceivably be eradicated or effectively suppressed.
The point remains valid as a rebuff of your assertion that marijuana can be more easily eradicated or controlled.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
No Joe, I don't. Not for this debate anyway. You have to show why our current laws don't constitute hypocrisy. We can discuss anything you wish after that.

Sorry, Bill, but that's exactly what you must do. You've been crying "hypocrisy" all through this discussion, but you've never actually spelled out what it is about the differing legal treatments of alcohol and marijuana that actually constitutes "hypocrisy."

Since I'm fairly confident that you'll continue to avoid this issue unless given some firm guidance, I will make it easier for you. Below is what I consider to be an exhaustive list of the reasons why such disparate legal treatment might be considered "hypocritical:"
(a) both alcohol and marijuana are harmless, and therefore the law should not treat one as more harmful than the other;
(b) alcohol is more harmful than marijuana, and therefore the law should not treat a less harmful substance more harshly than a more harmful substance;
(c) alcohol and marijuana are equally harmful, and therefore the law should not treat equally harmful substances differently;
(d) it doesn't matter how harmful marijuana and alcohol are, the law has no business regulating either of these substances.

NOTE: "all of the above" is not an option, since the above choices are mutually exclusive. Your task, Bill, is to stop whining about "hypocrisy" in the abstract and pick one reason for labelling the current laws "hypocritical."
I've neither whined nor cried about "hypocrisy". I've merely reminded you what the debate is about. Here it is again:
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do you really think you can mount an argument to demonstrate Marijuana being illegal while Alcohol is not; doesn't constitute hypocrisy?

Yes.
Nowhere in your answer was a condition that I provide you with a mountain of peripheral positions attack. Furthermore; I've already clarified my point as much as is necessary, and you even thanked me for doing so.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Neither of those answers are relevant to the debate at hand. You have agreed to demonstrate that our current laws don't constitute hypocrisy. Please stop evading the issue and just do it if you think you can.

Bill, I can't defend the laws against the charge of "hypocrisy" if I don't know why you're calling them "hypocritical." That's the purpose of the foregoing exercise. If, on the other hand, you want to continue making vague accusations of "hypocrisy" without explaining the nature of the charge, then I suppose I will henceforth be entitled to answer "you're wrong" without providing any explanation for my response.
Surely you jest. You are suggesting that if I don't indulge in each of your tangents that that somehow relieves you of the burden you originally accepted without condition. You are excellent at using these diversionary tactics, but ultimately you have still done nothing to demonstrate the lack of hypocrisy you said you could. If you choose to resort to answering with "you're wrong" without providing any explanation, I will consider that a total failure of the challenge you accepted.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
If your only remaining argument is: marijuana can be controlled; then please provide some proof that it is being controlled. This burden of proof is yours, since you agreed to demonstrate why our current laws don't constitute hypocrisy.

Presently, regular marijuana use is ten times less prevalent than alcohol use. That strikes me as pretty persuasive evidence that usage is being controlled by the current drug laws.
In order to make that conclusion, you would first have to demonstrate that there is a similar number of people who wish to use marijuana and alcohol. Do you have any other "proof" that marijuana is being controlled?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2004 04:40 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
My answer clearly nullifies your attempt at separation of alcohol and marijuana, based on how long it's been used and as whether it is used in religious ceremony. Your introduction of "Western Culture" as a parameter; is yet another transparent attempt to obscure the issue. Your have shown no separation with that point.

Well, first of all, if Indians are smoking anything during religious ceremonies, it's likely they're smoking peyote, not marijuana. The two substances are not identical, even if some stoners confuse the one for the other.

Secondly, "Western culture" is a proper "parameter" for judging laws governing a Western culture. If there is a culture out there, where marijuana is as integral as alcohol is to Western culture, then I suppose I would recommend different drug laws for that culture. But that culture would not be a Western culture.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
For the purposes of this debate; I accept your statistics. 8.6% of Americans equates to 22,360,000 marijuana smokers. 22,360,000! In what twisted reality would 22 million people be considered an insignificant number?

When it is compared with the number 221,123,000.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I've already drawn similarities between the two prohibitions… But your stats make it even clearer. 734,497 people were arrested for marijuana in the year 2000. According to your own statistics; that is only 3.3% of marijuana smokers. If 8.6% should be considered insignificant; than surely 3.3% should be considered even more insignificant.

How are arrest statistics relevant to anything?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
The point remains valid as a rebuff of your assertion that marijuana can be more easily eradicated or controlled.

No, it doesn't. But as I'm rapidly losing interest here, I'll let this pass without additional comment.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I've neither whined nor cried about "hypocrisy". I've merely reminded you what the debate is about. Here it is again:
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do you really think you can mount an argument to demonstrate Marijuana being illegal while Alcohol is not; doesn't constitute hypocrisy?

Yes.
Nowhere in your answer was a condition that I provide you with a mountain of peripheral positions attack. Furthermore; I've already clarified my point as much as is necessary, and you even thanked me for doing so.

Indeed, I thanked you for narrowing down your position to the point that you specified that "marijuana is not more harmful than alcohol." Of course, that still leaves open the four options that I previously identified: that neither is harmful, that alcohol is more harmful, that they are equally harmful, and that it doesn't matter if either is harmful.

I suspect that you really believe the last to be true: that it doesn't matter how harmful marijuana is, the government has no business regulating it. That, in particular, is a far different position from the other three, which are all grounded on a harmfulness standard rather than a "personal liberty" standard. As such, I'm sure you can understand why I won't attempt to frame an argument regarding the "hypocrisy" of marijuana laws until I know precisely what type of "hypocrisy" it is we're facing.

Up to this point, I have been very patient with you. My patience, however, is nearly exhausted. Your continued evasions suggest that you either have no idea why you levelled this charge of "hypocrisy," or else that you have no confidence that you can defend your position once it is revealed.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Surely you jest. You are suggesting that if I don't indulge in each of your tangents that that somehow relieves you of the burden you originally accepted without condition.

You asked if I can mount an argument against the charge of hypocrisy. My answer still stands: "yes." Provide some basis for your charge of hypocrisy, and I shall provide my response.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You are excellent at using these diversionary tactics, but ultimately you have still done nothing to demonstrate the lack of hypocrisy you said you could. If you choose to resort to answering with "you're wrong" without providing any explanation, I will consider that a total failure of the challenge you accepted.

The challenge has never really been mounted. You've provided the promise of an argument, but you've done little to provide the basis for one.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
In order to make that conclusion, you would first have to demonstrate that there is a similar number of people who wish to use marijuana and alcohol. Do you have any other "proof" that marijuana is being controlled?

To be sure, my "proof" rests on a counter-factual: if marijuana were legalized, more people would use it. But then I think that's an intuitively sound counter-factual -- one that, I believe, the proponents of legalization would support.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2004 05:36 pm
Joe, your inability to recognize and accept valid comparisons is not demonstrative of debating ability. It is childish and annoying. I suspect you'd deny that 2 + 2 = 4, if it didn't suit your argument.

Joe, your average 12 year old could read my point as written, and repeated below, without any confusion whatsoever as to what I mean. You are attempting to over isolate fragments of my point in order to further obscure the issue. Having watched you use this annoying tactic before, I will not indulge in it with you. My point is no more or less specific than any of your 4 choices. I'm sorry if it doesn't fit as neatly into any of your predefined arguments.
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'll restate this point in an attempt to clarify it for you. I will not, however, expand on it in order to provide you additional wiggle room. Please abandon that strategy.

POINT: Since Marijuana is not more harmful than Alcohol, current laws that make Marijuana illegal while Alcohol is legal constitute hypocrisy. END POINT

How could I possibly be any clearer?



I'll ask you once more: Please prove what you said you can prove, or don't. No amount of evasion or insult will lesson your burden of proof. If you can't do it, say so. If you can, do it.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2004 06:40 pm
Round and round and round we go,
Where we'll end up I just don't know.
It really is quite humorous though,
To witness this little to and fro.

Thankyou Bill, Thankyou Joe.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2004 07:32 pm
Laughing You are quite welcome, Adrian. Laughing
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2004 08:05 pm
You're certainly a patient man, O'Bill.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2004 08:17 pm
I'm working on it. :wink:
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2004 09:48 am
Upon reading your latest post, Bill, my first inclination was to declare that there would be no need for further discussion. Your continued, obstinate refusal to identify the basis for your position, apart from a rather bland assertion that "marijuana is not more harmful than alcohol," strongly suggests that your position has no basis. As such, there really is not much left to discuss.

On the other hand, such persistent, equine intransigence presents its own kind of intriguing challenge, one that I'm willing to take up, if only for as long as it continues to be intriguing. There is, in other words, the chance that something is there, buried far beneath the hard surface of this stubborn ipse dixit, that cries out to be revealed to the world.

You have, then, challenged me to mount an argument for the proposition that U.S. drug laws are not hypocritical. Of course, I still cannot address an argument that you have not yet made: not only would that be unfair to you, it would be a waste of time. Given that you have not revealed the basis for your position, I can only sketch an outline of an argument that addresses your position. Here it is:

(1) "Hypocrisy" is the holding of mutually inconsistent positions simultaneously.
(2) In the specific area of the law, "hypocrisy" would entail either treating similar things differently, or else treating different things similarly.
(3) The laws treat alcohol and marijuana differently.
(4) Thus, if alcohol and marijuana are similar, it would be possible to describe their disparate legal treatment as "hypocritical" (see point 2, above)
(5) Alcohol and marijuana, however, are different.
(6) Consequently, treating different things differently is not "hypocritical."


Admittedly, this is merely the framework of an argument. Considering, however, that you've only offered a framework of an argument yourself, Bill, I don't feel obliged to offer anything more than what I have given here. And I do so in the expectation that, in fashioning a response hereto, you'll actually be forced to articulate a rationale behind your position, rather than continuing to rely on the unsupported assertion that the laws are "hypocritical."
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2004 10:06 am
joefromchicago wrote:

(1) "Hypocrisy" is the holding of mutually inconsistent positions simultaneously.



Actually, hypocrisy really doesn't mean that at all -- although I will allow that the word has become corrupted in everyday use.

Hypocrisy has a rather specific meaning. It is the pretense of having feelings or characteristics one does not possess; especially the deceitful assumption of noteworthy or praiseworthy qualities. At one time, it applied almost exclusively to qualities of religious devotion.

In any case, as interesting as all this is (and it is interesting to eavesdrop on), I hope you guys finally wrap up this hypocrisy thing so we can get to that other stuff.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2004 10:20 am
I like pot, peyote, cocaine, MDA, quaaludes, and LSD.

I don't have any though. Crying or Very sad I can't afford it. Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad

I'm an excellent driver.

K Mart sucks.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2004 10:35 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I like pot, peyote, cocaine, MDA, quaaludes, and LSD.

I don't have any though. Crying or Very sad I can't afford it. Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad


You can't afford it???!!!


I think that is what is referred to as a "drug problem."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/18/2021 at 06:13:49