|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Again, I can't get over how you attempt, albeit it feebly, to equate pot smoking with human rights. Pathetic.
He never equated pot smoking with human rights except insofar as both are/were illegal, which is a true statement. That's all he needs in order to prove his point. He never claims smoking pot is a human rights issue, he never claims that marijuana prohibition is a form of slavery. He doesn't need to, his argument still invalidates your point anyway.
Your argument: "Smoking pot is wrong because it is illegal"
His argument: "(x) shows that illegality and immorality are not correlated"
The fact that he chose (x) to be "denying voting rights to blacks" doesn't have any impact on the argument. He chose it because it's a stunningly strong example which takes away half of your ground in defending your premise. (You can either argue, "(x) is in fact moral", or "following legal code is the only moral alternative unless that law infringes on negative rights". Letting (x) be as hideous of an example as he could think of, he made the former point almost undebatable, and thus his argument is quite effective.)
Either way, you've only yet made one argument against pot smoking (that stated above) and whether you like the connection or not, logically his argument against you is good. Why exactly is smoking pot wrong (not merely illegal)?
Sorry for the lecturing tone this took, it just annoys me when people make arguments that aren't intellectually honest (because I assume you understand what I'm saying), and then defend it with words like "pathetic", and "feebly" in order to compensate for not actually having an argument. (A problem which is unfortunately turning into an epidemic in this country.)
~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 11/15/07 09:17 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,843
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,843 |
Okay, try this: Morality is something someone else brought up. Let's go back to what this topic is about: Ricky Williams.
Now, let's try to leave everyone's "morality" out of it. The laws of this country are very clear that using pot, selling pot, or possessing pot, is flat out illegal. Aside from California apparently allowing it for some ill people - it is illegal in all 50 states. There are federal laws and state laws about that. Pot is illegal.
Nextly, the NFL clearly prohibits marijuana usage. No if's and's or but's about it. The nfl does not allow it.
These 2 points are where my discussion began, and also where it ends. Others broght "their" morality into it. Don't chew on me. Don't tell me it's "only pot", unless you care to drunk driving "only drunk driving".
Now, on this next point, you or anyone else that knows, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. My understanding is that the nfl does not suspend you the first time you are caught with an illegal substance. So, the first time Ricky got suspended, he apparently had tested positive at least 2 times, if not 3.
Granted, he served his suspension. At that time, he was free to come back into the nfl. He did. He got caught again. He was suspended. At that time, in total, he had tested positive at least 3 times, if not more.
All this while knowing: it is illegal in this country, AND my employer does not allow it. Now, if your employer did/does not allow you to smoke pot, and you do anyway, do you feel you should not be fired?
Regardless, Ricky has sat out his suspension, he's taking the league mandated "counseling" and he is again in good standing, drug wise, with the nfl.
If a team picks him up, they should not be surprised to learn within the next year that Ricky got suspended again.
Again, the "morality" b.s. was brought up by others attempting to justify their belief that "it's just pot". B.S. Yeah, it's just pot. Crack cocaine is just crack. The laws of the country are just that - we can't pick and choose which ones we obey based simply on what feels good. Add to that the fact that the nfl prohibits it, and I am right in everything I have said.
Again, my point has never been proven wrong. Smoking pot is illegal. Period. That is not a "moral" judgement. Other's brought their "morality" into the discussion, yet no one countered that "pot is legal" for Ricky to smoke.
Now, if/when the "should pot be legal" issue is put on a state or federal ballot and everyone in that state/country gets to vote on it....IF it passes - even 50.1% for making it legal, at that point in time part of my arguement becomes null and void, and I'll be the first to admit it. Also, if it were legal, I'd be very tempted to try it. Probably wouldn't cause I'm afraid I would like it.
However, until the nfl changes it's stance, it would still be a reason to be suspended from the nfl.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
I don't think anybody here has debated that pot is illegal. There are two debates going on in this thread currently. *Ricky Williams should/shouldn't be reinstated/picked up. * Pot should/shouldn't be legal. Quote:
Again, the "morality" b.s. was brought up by others attempting to justify their belief that "it's just pot". B.S. Yeah, it's just pot. Crack cocaine is just crack. The laws of the country are just that - we can't pick and choose which ones we obey based simply on what feels good.
I'll amend this somewhat. We certainly can choose which laws we obey. We just have to accept the consequences of doing things that are "illegal". (That's what RW spent the last year doing.) But because something we choose to do is illegal, that doesn't make it wrong.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,843
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,843 |
Quote:
I don't think anybody here has debated that pot is illegal. There are two debates going on in this thread currently.
*Ricky Williams should/shouldn't be reinstated/picked up.
* Pot should/shouldn't be legal.
Quote:
Again, the "morality" b.s. was brought up by others attempting to justify their belief that "it's just pot". B.S. Yeah, it's just pot. Crack cocaine is just crack. The laws of the country are just that - we can't pick and choose which ones we obey based simply on what feels good.
I'll amend this somewhat. We certainly can choose which laws we obey. We just have to accept the consequences of doing things that are "illegal". (That's what RW spent the last year doing.) But because something we choose to do is illegal, that doesn't make it wrong.
~Lyuokdea
Okay, have it your way. do your little play on words.........see, you are bringing YOUR morality into it. Pot is illegal. Can it be more clear than that? Now, if you choose to smoke it, or whoever, that is their right, just as you stated. Legally, it is wrong. Morally? I could care less about the moral standpoint.
See, there's more than just the 2 discussions going on here. And actually, I think you missed the mark on both of them....the discussion is not "should Ricky be re-instated" - he has been cleared to play. There is no discussion on that.
Your second point "should pot be legal or not" is really not an issue either. Currently it is illegal. Period.
The real discussion is "will, or when will, Ricky test positvie again".
All the other stuff is people justifying their positions on pot. Me included, however I got a little bothered by people saying "oh, geez, it's just pot". Again, OTHERS put their morality into the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Your second point "should pot be legal or not" is really not an issue either. Currently it is illegal. Period.
Wait...We can't discuss changing the law? That seems a little bit restrictive. I thought that's what political discussions were for, to debate what should be it's not much of a debate if we only state what is.
Quote:
All the other stuff is people justifying their positions on pot. Me included, however I got a little bothered by people saying "oh, geez, it's just pot". Again, OTHERS put their morality into the discussion.
Your response is also a moral position. (To decide that the law a priori equivalent to right and wrong is itself a moral stance.) I don't know if that's what the "Me Included" meant or not. But the OTHERS seems quite clear.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,843
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,843 |
All the other stuff is people justifying their positions. Me included.
It's not that tough to figure out what I meant, is it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
All the other stuff is people justifying their positions. Me included.
It's not that tough to figure out what I meant, is it?
That's why I quoted what you said, but the very next sentence
Quote:
however I got a little bothered by people saying "oh, geez, it's just pot". Again, OTHERS put their morality into the discussion.
seemed to indicate the opposite, including the however and capitalized OTHERS
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
To end a myth.. Smoking weed is illegal in California for anyone, prescription or no prescription.. Federal laws supercedes State law.. a law which was passed by the voters of California. But this factoid is still being fought on the grounds of State's rights...
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
B.S. Yeah, it's just pot. Crack cocaine is just crack.
And you're saying other people are making left-field comparisons? 
You're a big gun guy, think about it this way -- it's not the substance that's hamrful, but the idiots who use it irresponsibly. But the government wants to mandate without addressing the real problem...
...I can't even make this analogy with a straight face because the 'idiots who use it irresponsibly'...what? Worst-case scenario end up lazy?
There's no reason to mandate marijuana. If people use too much pot, it's not a problem caused by addiction (which is physically non-existant and mentally low)...it's probably because that person has other things going on in their lives they need to address...and even tehn it's really not all that detrimental to society...or at the least it's effects are minimal.
It's just pot...it's just a few beers....it's just for fun...these can be denial-laden excuses...they can also be the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,071
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,071 |
Quote:
Seriously?!?!
No Way.
Nice argument.
Well, it is illegal so there shouldn't be an argument there..
But in the world of football,, (just in that world) its a banned substance. I am not gonna debate right and wrong here... doesn't matter what I think anyway. But in the NFL, it's banned and Ricky is an NFL Employee..
And as a player, Ricky receives huge bunches of money... So putting down the weed doesn't seem to me to be much of a sacrifice..
Players careers are short,, usually over before they are ready for it.. If Ricky would have waited until he retired to get into the weed,, then I'd say,, ok,, no problem from the NFL,, but Ricky,,, You may want to do that stuff on the downlow or you will end up in the pokey 
As far as Ricky coming here... Please people, do we really need to add another headcase.. WE got a good group of guys and if nothing else, haven't we seen what happens when you add talented but flawed character guys to a team..... Look no further than Cincinnati for the answer..
So, no thanks to Ricky...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Im really surprised no one has brought up L. T. in this debate.
How many time's did he get busted for coke? He came back and had a great career.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,843
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,843 |
Quote:
okay, what's the over/under line on how long it takes him to start being a pothead again? (or should I say, until he gets caught again?)
Here it is: my first post in this thread.
Phil, you make some sense on this (God, forgive me  )
With guns, I make a mistake, someone gets hurt or killed. I understand that. With pot, supposedly no one is hurt. I understand that.
Ricky is an idiot. To give up football for pot. Put it this way, to me that makes him an idiot. Perhaps to others it doesn't.
Is pot good for you, is it bad for you? I don't care. Is it legal, should it be legal? I don't care.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,071
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,071 |
Quote:
Im really surprised no one has brought up L. T. in this debate.
How many time's did he get busted for coke? He came back and had a great career.
True enough,, how many times did LT let his team down... How many times did LT get suspended by the league,,
It was a different day and age... times were different.. that's not an excuse, it's just the way it was.. as recently as 20 years ago, you didn't hear much about player issues... not even close...
So, it might just be the times...
Again, there is no excuse for drug abuse!
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Ricky Williams reinstated
|
|
