You still can't address anything you've said in the thread.
To quote you;
It is funny that you think I am debating you, or that I owe you an answer to any of your questions when you refuse to answer mine.
And
No, I don’t agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society
You're wrong. You're plain wrong. The science shows this. You can't address this. You'll chew of your own leg before trying to debate me on this, because you realise you got into a debate with someone who knows his shit, while you're full of shit, and you're absolutely terrified of being ashamed "publicly." Too late buddy. Sorry. :(
All you can do is repeat your childish ad hom. Nothing else. I'll quote you a bit more, but you won't be able to address that either.
Oh look more logical fallacy with a heavy sprinkle of personal attack
And the earlier "you think I am debating you" combined with this gives a really nice taste of irony, doesn't it? ;)
You can't stand behind those words either, because you're now extremely ashamed when I pointed out how childish it is to pretend to know how rhetoric works by thinking that yelling out "logical fallacy" means the other person's rhetoric can be dismissed. If you had ever read a book about rhetoric, you'd know that. But, of course you haven't. You don't read books. You just google the names of books. :D
ONE MORE QUOTE (which you won't be able to address):
Honestly the logical fallacy and personal attacks have become quite tiresome.
You are not worth any further time
Curious how you're still here, so upset, while loudly proclaiming I'm not "worth any further time". Almost as if I've provoked you, isn't it? ;)
I stand by everything I have said. Made clear by the lack of editing done.
Maybe stop quoting me out of context. You may understand why you are wrong.
You don't stand by everything you've said. Actually, you don't stand by anything you've said. That's my point. You keep saying things that are very clearly not true, verifiable by this thread. Like you said, "anyone can read it."
The prohibition of drugs is harmful. This is a fact. All the science we have on it shows it is. I said I can offer up any number of literature on this, after which you asked for an arbitrary ten books. I named a book called "Good Cop, Bad War." You can't address me having named that book, except to whinge about me not having filled your arbitrary quotas. Why would you be a definite authority and ten books be the certain criteria for proving something is true? It isn't. If you read that book, you'd know what it's about, but obviously, as established, you don't read. You don't even bother reading the comments you reply to, by your own admission.
Which is why I linked this: https://youtu.be/y_TV4GuXFoA?si=hFGZyNJqHnPpmuLl&t=718 You don't even need to watch that insanely long 12,5 minute video. That's just the last 30 seconds of it, where he speaks about the book I mentioned. I quote: "My position is the position of my organisation which is the law enforcement action partnership; we advocate for the full regulation of all the drug markets, to take control away from organised crime and increasingly we've becoming the most important voices for reform."
Your position is asinine and wrong, which is the point of this entire thread. But you won't be able to talk about it, you'll continue with more childish personal attacks.
edit oh like I said, you ignored the parts of the last comment which would humiliate you. you can try to ignore them to keep that thought away, but even when you delete the comments, the idiocy will remain. your need to up your rhetorical game.
The prohibition of drugs is harmful.
When did I say it wasn't?
Do try not to quote me out of context this time.
Your position is asinine and wrong, which is the point of this entire thread.
What is my position?
edit oh like I said, you ignored the parts of the last comment which would humiliate you. you can try to ignore them to keep that thought away, but even when you delete the comments, the idiocy will remain. your need to up your rhetorical game.
Posted a comment and edited within 2 minutes because you forgot to attempt an insult, yet I am the one who is "provoked" and "angry".
Stay mad homie.
And back to the childish "no I didn't" it is. Okay, let's do this for a few comments until you get provoked into trying something desperate again.
No, I don’t agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society
Why would we need for you to say it's harmful? You explicitly say that you don't think it needs to be lifted for the good of society. It does. Just like the book "Good Cop, Bad War" explains in detail. But like I've said, you can't even mention the book, because it would mean that you'd have to address something you know you're wrong in. You asked for books, yet you can't discuss them, because you weren't asking for books in good faith.
Like I've said, kids like you are a dime in a dozen. You genuinely think you have some gotcha, when you're repeating the very same things that a million others like you have. This is basically just practice for me, you see. I like rhetoric. I'm also intrigued by willful ignorance. Willful ignorance like you display when you ignore all the things you've said yourself. Like screaming "logical fallacy", implying that because something has a logical fallacy in it (which it didn't, btw, you really don't understand those as well as you think :D), it has to be wrong and thus you've "won" the debate. Not understanding what an argument from fallacy is. This is like the dozenth time I'm writing this in a comment. You keep ignoring it, because you're simply so ashamed of having said that.
You still can't address anything you've said in the thread.
To quote you;
And
You're wrong. You're plain wrong. The science shows this. You can't address this. You'll chew of your own leg before trying to debate me on this, because you realise you got into a debate with someone who knows his shit, while you're full of shit, and you're absolutely terrified of being ashamed "publicly." Too late buddy. Sorry. :(
All you can do is repeat your childish ad hom. Nothing else. I'll quote you a bit more, but you won't be able to address that either.
And the earlier "you think I am debating you" combined with this gives a really nice taste of irony, doesn't it? ;)
You can't stand behind those words either, because you're now extremely ashamed when I pointed out how childish it is to pretend to know how rhetoric works by thinking that yelling out "logical fallacy" means the other person's rhetoric can be dismissed. If you had ever read a book about rhetoric, you'd know that. But, of course you haven't. You don't read books. You just google the names of books. :D
ONE MORE QUOTE (which you won't be able to address):
Curious how you're still here, so upset, while loudly proclaiming I'm not "worth any further time". Almost as if I've provoked you, isn't it? ;)
I stand by everything I have said. Made clear by the lack of editing done.
Maybe stop quoting me out of context. You may understand why you are wrong.
You don't stand by everything you've said. Actually, you don't stand by anything you've said. That's my point. You keep saying things that are very clearly not true, verifiable by this thread. Like you said, "anyone can read it."
The prohibition of drugs is harmful. This is a fact. All the science we have on it shows it is. I said I can offer up any number of literature on this, after which you asked for an arbitrary ten books. I named a book called "Good Cop, Bad War." You can't address me having named that book, except to whinge about me not having filled your arbitrary quotas. Why would you be a definite authority and ten books be the certain criteria for proving something is true? It isn't. If you read that book, you'd know what it's about, but obviously, as established, you don't read. You don't even bother reading the comments you reply to, by your own admission.
Which is why I linked this: https://youtu.be/y_TV4GuXFoA?si=hFGZyNJqHnPpmuLl&t=718 You don't even need to watch that insanely long 12,5 minute video. That's just the last 30 seconds of it, where he speaks about the book I mentioned. I quote: "My position is the position of my organisation which is the law enforcement action partnership; we advocate for the full regulation of all the drug markets, to take control away from organised crime and increasingly we've becoming the most important voices for reform."
Your position is asinine and wrong, which is the point of this entire thread. But you won't be able to talk about it, you'll continue with more childish personal attacks.
edit oh like I said, you ignored the parts of the last comment which would humiliate you. you can try to ignore them to keep that thought away, but even when you delete the comments, the idiocy will remain. your need to up your rhetorical game.
When did I say it wasn't?
Do try not to quote me out of context this time.
What is my position?
Posted a comment and edited within 2 minutes because you forgot to attempt an insult, yet I am the one who is "provoked" and "angry".
Stay mad homie.
And back to the childish "no I didn't" it is. Okay, let's do this for a few comments until you get provoked into trying something desperate again.
Why would we need for you to say it's harmful? You explicitly say that you don't think it needs to be lifted for the good of society. It does. Just like the book "Good Cop, Bad War" explains in detail. But like I've said, you can't even mention the book, because it would mean that you'd have to address something you know you're wrong in. You asked for books, yet you can't discuss them, because you weren't asking for books in good faith.
Like I've said, kids like you are a dime in a dozen. You genuinely think you have some gotcha, when you're repeating the very same things that a million others like you have. This is basically just practice for me, you see. I like rhetoric. I'm also intrigued by willful ignorance. Willful ignorance like you display when you ignore all the things you've said yourself. Like screaming "logical fallacy", implying that because something has a logical fallacy in it (which it didn't, btw, you really don't understand those as well as you think :D), it has to be wrong and thus you've "won" the debate. Not understanding what an argument from fallacy is. This is like the dozenth time I'm writing this in a comment. You keep ignoring it, because you're simply so ashamed of having said that.
To quote a comment of yours: