This is such a strange post- I brought it over here because we have been talking about absolutist thinking:
"The liberal position on the war on drugs is the same liberal position taken in any important struggle - SURRENDER.
If I were to surrender in the War on Drugs, then the result would be that my children use drugs.
On the other hand I am declaring VICTORY!. My kids don't use drugs (ages 19 and 22).
In the War on terrorism, illegal immigration, drugs, poverty ....., liberals have SURRENDERED.
P.S. If you do not want to end illegal immigration, then you are surrendering on the war on poverty "
Now first and foremost, I don't see the democratic party taking a position that we should end the war on drugs. So who are these liberals he is talking about? It's unfortunate no one major is trying to end the "war on drugs"- but as far as I can see there are only a few people on the far left, and some libertarians interested in this issue, despite the enormous amount of money we spend on it (I won't say "waste" because that would be rhetorical, but I am THINKING waste when I write "spend").
Then note that a change in how we approach changing our response to the drug problem is termed "surrender". If we took this to its logical conclusion, then any deviation from any original policy, even if the policy clearly wasn't working, would be surrender. The end of prohibition? Surrender. hmmmm....
On top of this, note the illogical jump from "surrender" (or really, we change our policy in the war on drugs), to the personal imagined anecdote- namely that this poster's children would be using drugs but for the war on drugs. I find this thinking very odd. Clearly, he's committed to this line of argument, and thinks it is effective- but I think this is exactly what we were discussion yesterday. This illogical sort of mish mash only speaks to people who already agree with this speaker. I think most people on the fence, or people who disagree with the speaker, are going to be pulled up short by the rather gruesome logical fallacy in the logic of what the poster has written. (Actually, now that I reflect on it, I think this post might even embarass some people who agree with the speaker in wrt to supporting the war on drugs- the logic is just so bad.)
Anyway, I thought this post was so illogical, and such a nice example of what we were talking about yesterday, and on top of that not really at odds with anyone's personal position here, I thought it made a neat little package (I don't remember anyone here being deeply committed to the "war" on drugs- if I'm in error, my apologies to whoever I overlooked). |
