It is you who are making the appeal to extremes Chumly. Your statement "All sexual acts between consenting adults" is an extreme statement. You are apparently unwilling to qualify it.
The statement "All drugs should be legalized" is another extreme statement. It is my opinion that drugs like crystal meth are pretty much death sentences meaning that taking crystal meth is not substantially different than suicide. Even if Crystal Meth isn't a death sentence you could certainly imagine a drug that is (which you would say should be legal if you really mean "all drugs").
You are making extreme, unqualified statements. I am not making them absurd. They are absurd.
My real issue here is that there are complex issues to legalizing drugs, such as the fact that there are drugs that are very dangerous where most of the people who take them die of these drugs. I am willing to draw a line between different classes of drugs. I am not willing to legalize drugs that are certain death. There is a line to be drawn somewhere.
By taking the extreme position that you are taking, to legalize "all drugs", in my opinion you are sweeping the difficult social issues under the rug.
When you say you would legalize all drugs, do you really mean "all drugs"? Are you willing to legalize drugs that mean certain death for people who take them? Where do you draw the line?
Your claim that I am "unwilling to qualify it" (sic) is patently false and is nothing more than another of your logical fallacies (red herring) in that it misleads or distracts from the relevant issue. To wit, you have made claims as to amputation being a part of a sexual act. In fact however, you have never requested from me to define my terms in context as per "1) All sexual acts and between consenting adults to be legalized, plus all prostitution between consenting adults, plus all public nudity. The war to uphold puritanical sexual mores is an abysmal failure." but have instead relied on a plethora of logical fallacies and spurious argumentation.
Most particularly of late has been your reliance on the argumentum ad nauseam fallacy, and as discussed it's a logical fallacy that something becomes true if it is repeated often enough. I should point out that the more you rely on logical fallacies in particular the argumentum ad nauseam fallacy, the less likely I am to give credence to your texts.
Your claim that I said "All drugs should be legalized" is nothing more than another of your logical fallacies, in this case quoting out of context. As such your opinions on crystal meth are not in the context of the second sentence of "4) Legalize all drugs. The war on drugs is an abysmal failure".
Your claim that "You are making extreme, unqualified statements" (sic) is itself an extreme, unqualified statement supported by nothing more that a number of as discussed.logical fallacies.
Lastly, you ask: "When you say you would legalize all drugs, do you really mean all drugs?" At the risk of repetition the answer is no different than as expressed in my first post. However I speculate from your prior text as per crystal meth, that you may construe this to mean I condone crystal meth usage. If it is true that you construe this to mean I condone crystal meth usage, then you would not only be incorrect in this assessment but you would also be guilty of the logical fallacy leaping to a conclusion.
If in fact you do not construe this to mean I condone crystal meth usage, then my speculation was incorrect.