Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being against abortion is emotional. Being against gay marriage is emotional. Denying that science behind climate is emotional. Denying the science behind studies in the safety of cannabis is emotional.
Those are all absurd notions.
There can be logical reasoned thinking behind every one of your examples.
Psychologists in Israel have conducted six studies and concluded that liberals make emotional decisions while conservatives make reasoned ones. They believe that their conclusions can be applied to US politics.
Conservative are more bad ass standing rigidly on principles while liberals are more swayed by emotions and empathy.
There can be logical reasoned thinking behind every one of your examples.
Just because it can, does not mean it is. That doesn't even address the reason of left either. Logic from one perspective may still be less logical than that from the other. That's to say, with something like marijuana. The right argues it's about safety. The left argues it's a safer drug than many of our legal drugs. To ban one for being unsafe yet to have one that is objectively less safe be completely legal doesn't really make any sense. This seems to undermine the safety argument, as well as the usual 'individual liberty' argument Republicans love to bash Democrats for taking away.
The primary reason they are so against the legalization of marijuana is simply because it was illegal before. To revisit the subject with new scientific knowledge does not matter; it was illegal in the past so it needs to stay that way. And that's not logic. That's emotion.
Just because it can, does not mean it is. That doesn't even address the reason of left either. Logic from one perspective may still be less logical than that from the other. That's to say, with something like marijuana. The right argues it's about safety. The left argues it's a safer drug than many of our legal drugs. To ban one for being unsafe yet to have one that is objectively less safe be completely legal doesn't really make any sense. This seems to undermine the safety argument, as well as the usual 'individual liberty' argument Republicans love to bash Democrats for taking away.
The primary reason they are so against the legalization of marijuana is simply because it was illegal before. To revisit the subject with new scientific knowledge does not matter; it was illegal in the past so it needs to stay that way. And that's not logic. That's emotion.
Most conservatives are against marijuana because they believe that regular use of it leads to negative social habits like sloth and apathy. Stoners have an unappealing image in the mind of most conservatives, so arguments about it's relative safety do not sway their views. They believe that marijuana is bad for society.
Just because it can, does not mean it is. That doesn't even address the reason of left either. Logic from one perspective may still be less logical than that from the other. That's to say, with something like marijuana. The right argues it's about safety. The left argues it's a safer drug than many of our legal drugs. To ban one for being unsafe yet to have one that is objectively less safe be completely legal doesn't really make any sense. This seems to undermine the safety argument, as well as the usual 'individual liberty' argument Republicans love to bash Democrats for taking away.
The primary reason they are so against the legalization of marijuana is simply because it was illegal before. To revisit the subject with new scientific knowledge does not matter; it was illegal in the past so it needs to stay that way. And that's not logic. That's emotion.
Wow
Have someone you trust who is blunt and wont worry about possibly hurting your feelings read your reply and ask them what they think.
For instance your example of the safety of pot. One of the failings of the pro-pot crowd is that they cannot help but equate it with other legal drugs(i.e. booze) and debates it merits and ills just on it's own accord.
For instance, if we were debating in front of an audience and you pulled the typical "pot is less harmful than XYZ", I'd concede that point and ask you not to return to comparative analogies for the remainder of the our time. Then you would then be forced to acknowledge such things as driving while high on pot impairs people to some degree. You would not be able to retort that it is better than a drunk driver which could be your only defense, since we both know anything that alters ones alertness will diminish their driving ability.
The point is that trying to defend pot because other legal drugs might be worse does not diminish the ills of pot itself. So you emotionally try to convince your audience that if one is legal, then a less harmful drug should be allowed as well.
This of course ignores the fact that adding to the overall problem would be inevitable, because it is cloaked in a fairness argument, not whether pot will add to an existing problem, such as impaired driving.
Since pot apologists love to use comparative analogies, let me see if I can reach you this way. If two murderers(both guilty) are sentenced in the same state, but one receives the death penalty & the other life, opponents of the death penalty incorrectly claim it is unjust, because there were not equal outcomes. They of course are intentionally mixing up equality with justice. In reality and logically, the one person who gets the harsher sentence is still receiving justice for his crime, regardless of how other murders are sentenced.
So hopefully you can now see that the legitimate argument against pots safety is not undermined, as there are real safety concerns regardless of other things that might be even more unsafe.
Do I see a light bulb?
11-08-2014, 10:20 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
Those are all absurd notions.
There can be logical reasoned thinking behind every one of your examples.
Do tell us.
We've been waiting for a logical, non fear/hate/superstition-based argument against same sex marriage for decades now and it still hasn't emerged.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
