Rising GOP support for the U.S. taking unilateral military action in Mexico against drug cartels is increasingly rattling people on both sides of the border who worry talk of an attack is getting n…

Rising GOP support for the U.S. taking unilateral military action in Mexico against drug cartels is increasingly rattling people on both sides of the border who worry talk of an attack is getting normalized.

Wednesday’s Republican presidential primary debate featured high-stakes policy disagreements on a range of issues from abortion to the environment — but found near-unanimous consensus on the idea of using American military force to fight drug smuggling and migration.

  • lingh0e@lemmy.filmEnglish
    4·
    1 year ago

    A) You should try to avoid fallacious arguments. Comparing drugs with guns is a terrible false equivalence. It’s also just flat out wrong.

    B) You’re “guns don’t make you unable to reconsider” is one of the dumbest takes possible. If you use a gun for it’s sole intended purpose, you could kill yourself or someone else. That’s absolutely something you can’t reconsider. Dead is dead.

    Drugs have the potential to kill ONE person, the person who made the decision to ingest them. Guns have the potential to kill many people.

    There are SO many other arguments you could have made against relaxing drug policy, you chose poorly.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      2·
      1 year ago

      It can be right or wrong depending on the set of criteria to compare them. Since I haven’t said anything as absolute as you did in your “A” statement, I’d say you’re the one to do fallacies here.

      Drugs make your judgement impaired, so by extension they have the potential to make you do anything, including killing any amount of people.

      I don’t think I choose my arguments poorly. Natural languages are fuzzy, and when you immediately start with dubious interpretations of what I wrote with a clear goal to prove that someone’s right and someone’s wrong and not reach the truth possibly by asking questions or having conditional logic in your answers, you just discredit yourself and not me.

      • lingh0e@lemmy.filmEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        What you just said, literally, is the textbook definition of a false equivalence fallacy.

        False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence does not bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

        “If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there’s a leveling effect that opens the door to charlatans.”

        But that’s all irrelevant anyways since you’re basically just regurgitating DARE propaganda that has little basis in fact.

        The fact is that drugs won’t cause a normally reasonable person to suddenly go on a murderous rampage. There are people who have done terrible things under the influence of drugs, but there were always aggravating circumstances. Meanwhile there are millions of recreational drug users who go about their lives every day as productive members of society. You almost definitely know some personally.

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
          1·
          1 year ago

          What you just said, literally, is the textbook definition of a false equivalence fallacy.

          No, you just have a problem trying to understand what’s said to you, fighting some imagined war in text instead. For what?

          “If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there’s a leveling effect that opens the door to charlatans.”

          I’m equating equal things. There hasn’t been an argument here on a level above them.

          Also you are imagining a lot of what I’m saying instead of asking me when it’s unclear, I think this is deliberate but circumstances of upbringing made you think it’s not easy to notice, while it is and also discredits your argument.

          But that’s all irrelevant anyways since you’re basically just regurgitating DARE propaganda that has little basis in fact.

          Trying to present your opponent as a medium for some entity’s propaganda, thus attempting to diminish them as a subject of conversation, is something clearly incompatible with the image you are trying to create with that tone.

          The fact is that drugs won’t cause a normally reasonable person to suddenly go on a murderous rampage.

          A person who’d kill an attacker in self-defense - which is perfectly reasonable - can kill an innocent person under a drug causing hallucinations. That’s a very simple and a bit cinematographic example.

          Anyway, use of alcohol does that. Of course there are accompanying circumstances, there always are, that’s not a counterargument.

          Meanwhile there are millions of recreational drug users who go about their lives every day as productive members of society.

          The conversation is about cocaine, so irrelevant.

          You almost definitely know some personally.

          IRL - no, I live in a country where harmless weed gets you a sentence similar to one for heroine. Ex-Soviet laws and all that.

          Well, there was one guy, and yes, he’s normal morally, but I wouldn’t say adequate enough to entrust something important.