On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 08:56:51PM -0800, Tom wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:39:56PM -0500, ScruLoose wrote: > > Now you're just contradicting yourself. You're also handing me the > > point I've been trying to make on a platter. > > After claiming that it's blatant hypocrisy to treat different drugs > > differently, now you're saying "except for this one. Oh, and this, too." > > As it happens, you're backpedalling from an indefensible position into > > territory that makes sense, so I say "keep it up"... > > Backpedal just a little farther and we'll be in perfect agreement. ;-) > > You're parsing my statements a bit finer than I intended.
Heh! It's kind of an occupational hazard.
I learned rhetoric from the philosophy and religious studies depts.
Now I'm taking engineering, which is all into rigorousness and
precision. Dangerous combination, I guess.
> All I meant
> is 1) "everything has risks", 2) "there are instances of risky
> behavior that are socially acceptable; I believe some illegal
> behaviors are managable if carefully limited", and 3) "there are some
> instances of risky behavior which are not manageable by anyone".
This I can entirely agree with.
> I actually don't know your position, but think we probably are both
> saying the exact same thing.
Well... _now_ we're saying the same thing, anyway. ;-)
> Like I said, I have completely mixed emotions about this issue. I
> typically like to bash people who share my own opinions about this
> issue, because I'm not sure I'm right.
Playin' a bit of the ol' devil's advocate, eh?
I have no problem with that.
-Cheers!
--
,-------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> -ScruLoose- | To hell with Saddam <
> Please do not | and may he quickly be joined by Bush. <
> reply off-list. | - Salam Pax <
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
