mr. droogies
i think i painfully try to choose my words carefully, especially in this type of arena. i dont think i stated the rights of the majority are protected to greater degree over the rights of the minority. i also dont think i stated a majority of 51% gives a clear mandate on any subject. as such, its difficult for me to respond further, its common to read what you want to read as opposed to what was actually written when your debating a difference of opinion, ive done it myself. thats the reason sometimes i will ask if its fair for me to make a certain inference if i dont feel i have a full understanding of a statement. try not to let bias judgement get in the way, it is easy to do, and i will continue to try to show you the same respect. a good tip is to be very careful paraphrasing your opponents statement. and two your opponent (me) is not your enemy so dont take things too personally, its the arena of ideas, thats all and im providing you with the best oppurtunity to support and make a case for yours, and should hardly be considered the enemy.
as far as my analysis of the pursuit of happiness flys in the face of all political philosophers, you than went on with a questionable car analogy. what i said, and probably not clear enough, is that if the pursuit of happiness from a few hamper the pursuit of happiness for many, its reasonable to have a collective law to prohibit the behavior and let me give you an example. my neighbor wants to have the local band come over and set up in the back yard and party all night. 2 oclock in the morning and their in full 'pursuit of happiness'. but the rest of the street is unable to sleep ......hence we create a law of disturbing the peace, seems perfectly reasonable and rational. my impression is your so caught up in arguing individual rights that this is becoming the foundation of all your arguments. i respect that in one manner, believe it or not im as much disgusted by the incremental attack on individual rights as anyone on this thread, but i submit all debates and arguments and laws do not lay solely their foundation in this one issue.
as far as me not being well read on american history and documents pertaining to such, you are incorrect. i would like to add 'wealth of nations' to your list. careful on assuming your just obviously better educated and more well read if someone has a disagreement with you. another perfect way to make sure you never persaud them you are correct in a debate.
as far as asking me if cigarettes or alcohol is more dangerous than cocaine or marijauna, i can not which is why i havent given it much credence. my guess is that you would be hard pressed to prove the opposite. hence, i left you with the statement, one is legal and one is illegal, if you dont buy this go to the local park and give it a shot and see the consequences for yourself. i cant argue things that cant be proven, its futile, and i will be happy to say that when the situation arises and point out the obvious, one is legal, the other is not... i am fully aware this in no way helps the debate either, but at least im being honest and not engaging in unprovable reckless speculation. hopefully this post has been somewhat helpful. poet the tyrant. <g> |
