CSNbbs

converrl Wrote:

levydl Wrote:What's his idea about drugs? I thought it was that drug laws are great and people should go to jail for selling, making, using, etc.

Absolutely--and Rush should have gone to jail if he did anything wrong--last I heard, that case was up in the air regarding whether or not he doctor-shopped...but if he did--off to jail. Damn straight.

If Charles Manson told you not to put your wet finger into a live electrical outlet because it was dangerous would you discount the content of the statement because he was a disreputable person? Or would you just plunge that finger right into the live outlet? Answer that question honestly.....

levydl Wrote:I'm sure you take Al Gore completely seriously when he talks about Americans' carbon usage while flying around the country on his private jet and living in his giant mansion. Just a human failing, not a philosophical one, right?

Dude...you should know full well that my disagreement on man-made global warming comes from straight science, not whether or not Al Gore flies around on a private jet--I could give a flying f*ck what Al Gore does in his private life...I've only disagreed with his science and his policies, not his behavior.

If you don't believe me, you can check the history of my posts...

I'm about ideas and philosophy, not the behavior of a given individual...

Checkmate...

Saying that if you get electrocuted it will hurt is not the same as saying all drug users are low-lifes who should go to jail. One's verifiable, the other's an opinion.

When someone's position is that drug users should all be in jail because they're harmful to society, and then it turns out that this spokesperson is on drugs and then fights jail time (and the case has been dropped I think), well, it taints the message. I am aware that ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies. I'm just saying the speaker loses credibility and the idea he's spouting does as well.

I'm not familiar with your posts on global warming. My point was, people take the idea less seriously when the main spokesman for it, Gore, doesn't live it.

levydl Wrote:Saying that if you get electrocuted it will hurt is not the same as saying all drug users are low-lifes who should go to jail. One's verifiable, the other's an opinion.

I don't think Rush ever said ALL drug users are low-lives who should go to jail--he was probably referring to individuals who break the law when they deal or use drugs.

I use drugs--prescription drugs. I am a law-abiding citizen. I obtain them with a doctor's prescription. I shouldn't go to jail.

levydl Wrote:When someone's position is that drug users should all be in jail because they're harmful to society, and then it turns out that this spokesperson is on drugs and then fights jail time (and the case has been dropped I think), well, it taints the message. I am aware that ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies. I'm just saying the speaker loses credibility and the idea he's spouting does as well.

Not at all--if the content of the message is a good one, then the message itself carries the day--look at all the reformed addicts who do public service regarding drug addiction...and many of them fall back into drugs...does that make their message to stay off drugs any less true or beneficial?

I think not.

Think of the inverse of your argument--because a spokesperson against illegal drug use has himself been caught using illegal drugs...should we then all start using drugs illegally?

I think not.

levydl Wrote:I'm not familiar with your posts on global warming. My point was, people take the idea less seriously when the main spokesman for it, Gore, doesn't live it.

I never took the idea of man-made global warming seriously in the first place...regardless of the behavior of the spokesperson(s). It's just bad science.

I'll give you an illustration from science you might find illuminating:

Enrico Fermi refused to wash his car because of his belief that particulate matter continues inevitably on a linear path toward the center of gravity of a given celestial body (in this case, the Earth). In order not to embarrass him publicly, his students would sneak out behind Fermi's back and wash his car...thus "proving" his point.

Fermi was a genius in nuclear physics and an upstanding individual. His ideas on washing cars were 100% WRONG.

The messenger and the message are not always in synch...

converrl Wrote:

levydl Wrote:Saying that if you get electrocuted it will hurt is not the same as saying all drug users are low-lifes who should go to jail. One's verifiable, the other's an opinion.

I don't think Rush ever said ALL drug users are low-lives who should go to jail--he was probably referring to individuals who break the law when they deal or use drugs.

I use drugs--prescription drugs. I am a law-abiding citizen. I obtain them with a doctor's prescription. I shouldn't go to jail.

levydl Wrote:When someone's position is that drug users should all be in jail because they're harmful to society, and then it turns out that this spokesperson is on drugs and then fights jail time (and the case has been dropped I think), well, it taints the message. I am aware that ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies. I'm just saying the speaker loses credibility and the idea he's spouting does as well.

Not at all--if the content of the message is a good one, then the message itself carries the day--look at all the reformed addicts who do public service regarding drug addiction...and many of them fall back into drugs...does that make their message to stay off drugs any less true or beneficial?

I think not.

Think of the inverse of your argument--because a spokesperson against illegal drug use has himself been caught using illegal drugs...should we then all start using drugs illegally?

I think not.

levydl Wrote:I'm not familiar with your posts on global warming. My point was, people take the idea less seriously when the main spokesman for it, Gore, doesn't live it.

I never took the idea of man-made global warming seriously in the first place...regardless of the behavior of the spokesperson(s). It's just bad science.

I'll give you an illustration from science you might find illuminating:

Enrico Fermi refused to wash his car because of his belief that particulate matter continues inevitably on a linear path toward the center of gravity of a given celestial body (in this case, the Earth). In order not to embarrass him publicly, his students would sneak out behind Fermi's back and wash his car...thus "proving" his point.

Fermi was a genius in nuclear physics and an upstanding individual. His ideas on washing cars were 100% WRONG.

The messenger and the message are not always in synch...

Obviously I meant those who take drugs illegally.

Again, the Fermi anecdote is not similar to the statements Limbaugh made (or apparently made anyway) about drug users. It doesn't matter who says, I don't need to wash my car because the gravitational pull of the earth will attract the dust off of it - we can verify whether that's true or false. You can't similarly test whether illegal drug users are lowlifes who should all be in prison. It's a moral judgment. When the person making that judgment is himself an illegal drug user, it impugns the message. The message and the messenger are often intertwined. Rush doesn't think he himself is a lowlife. His admirers don't think he's a lowlife. Yet he's a legal drug user.

I'm with you that we should often separate the idea from the person espousing it. But not in all cases. The fact that one of the most strident supporters of a certain idea can't live it often tells you something about that idea.

All drugs should be decriminalized (possession)/ or made legal and regulated along with all the other now legal drugs. Sorry to further derail.

levydl Wrote:You can't similarly test whether illegal drug users are lowlifes who should all be in prison. It's a moral judgment. When the person making that judgment is himself an illegal drug user, it impugns the message. The message and the messenger are often intertwined.

Not in this case--the message is a solid one--if you are found guilty of breaking the law regarding the use of controlled substances you should go to jail. I think that message stands on it's own merits regardless of the spokesperson...

levydl Wrote:Rush doesn't think he himself is a lowlife. His admirers don't think he's a lowlife. Yet he's a legal drug user.

(Did you mean to say illegal? Because he was not found guilty of illegal drug use--so technically your statement is correct.)

How do you know that Rush doesn't think he behaved as a lowlife with regards to this situation? Have you ever asked him? Have you ever called his show or e-mailed him? You might be surprised to hear the answer to that question...

I don't admire his behavior in this circumstance--I was deeply disappointed. It does not adulterate the content of the message for me. I am still a conservative, and the message Rush delivers is a conservative message.

levydl Wrote:I'm with you that we should often separate the idea from the person espousing it. But not in all cases. The fact that one of the most strident supporters of a certain idea can't live it often tells you something about that idea.

I disagree wholeheartedly.....

It's all about the content of the message for me--not the messenger. Personalities are human and fallible--even detestable at times.

A good and true message stands on its own merits for eternity....

Lush Wrote:All drugs should be decriminalized (possession)/ or made legal and regulated along with all the other now legal drugs. Sorry to further derail.

Oddly enough--I agree with that statement. I also think prostitution should be legalized. Not because I condone these activities, but because the damage to the economy and the associated crime element would drop drastically.

That being said...I don't also agree that...if legalized, the victims of these activities should become wards of the state--they should suffer the consequences of their actions themselves--they made this ill-advised decision--they alone should suffer the consequences.

If you refuse to follow advice that is demonstrably beneficial to your well-being, you assume the risks of that behavior.

This would essentially be natural selection....

beck Wrote:Oleskl, the conservatives always shoot first don't they. Icehole and Bearcat Dave still can't get over losing this election I guess.