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 < `-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Attachment:
pgpUMAKM_ubgm.pgp
Description: PGP signature