This is a discussion on Marijuana within the General Discussion forums, part of the Non Wrestling Forums category; Assassin, trolling and arguing semantics? Wait happened.. Kid used to be so much better than that.....
Welcome to Wrestling Clique Wrestling Forums
Hello and Welcome to WrestlingClique - Wrestling Forums!
We are the premier wrestling forum and your source for wrestling news and rumors, wrestling divas, wrestling gifs, sports discussion, e-feds, writing and more. Wrestling fans participate in active discussion on all the major wrestling leagues and events including WWE, ECW & TNA pay per view events, live wrestling streams, wrestling video games, collectibles, and other wrestling related products and services.
You're currently viewing our site as an unregistered guest which means you are limited to most discussions and features.
Take a few minutes to browse around, and if you like what you see, Register a free account to gain access to :
• Richer content, access forums that are not viewable by the public.
• Complete access to post topics, respond to polls, communicate privately (PM), take part contests, arcade, photo sharing, networking, groups.
• Create your personal profile and bio
• Meet and Chat Live with other members who share similar interests
Registration is simple and fast. Won't take you more than a minute and of course it's completely free.
So Join our Community today!
View Poll Results: What's your position on Marijuana?
Because I have exhausted my points and have nothing more to add that wouldn't be repetitive. We simply see differently on this issue.
Plus I think that if I said "Marijuana is green" you would tell me that is really not green, but a combination of greens, reds and browns.
I hope that analogy works for you.
Sure, that analogy works for me. It shows me that you're still employing the same fallacies that you've been using since I started actively posting here. It's not worth it, or whatever, to respond to me supposedly because I argue over things that are beside the main point.
...which, btw, is exactly what you did by using that analogy.
Ironic, or disingenuous? You tell me.
Quote:
Its also frustrating when you don't listen to a guy that has a vast amount of experience in the field but doesn't really like getting into it on a public forum that he owns. I don't know much, but I know my THC. Trust me.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I lol'd @ this. It's frustrating to you that someone doesn't listen to you in the debate forum? Does your claim to experience make you exempt from ever being challenged on the subject? Does it exclude the possibility that an assertion of yours is, dare I say it, inaccurate? And how is you owning the forum relevant to anything? It's a public forum, is it not? How does owning a domain contribute to your weed argument's validity, soundness, or overall credibility?
Assassin, trolling and arguing semantics? Wait happened.. Kid used to be so much better than that..
The Blitz Doctrine: No matter how off-topic and useless it may be, it is imperative that one makes an anti-Assassin comment as often as possible. Does it contribute anything of value to the discussion or at all further the topic? Does it abide by the forum's no-flaming rule? Is it even true? No, but who gives a shit, just take every opportunity you possibly can to make that smart-alec Assassin douche look like a uncredible poster.
I lol'd @ this. It's frustrating to you that someone doesn't listen to you in the debate forum? Does your claim to experience make you exempt from ever being challenged on the subject? Does it exclude the possibility that an assertion of yours is, dare I say it, inaccurate? And how is you owning the forum relevant to anything? It's a public forum, is it not? How does owning a domain contribute to your weed argument's validity, soundness, or overall credibility?
If you could read between the lines.........
I do not go into long details about illegal drug use and experience because I own the forum and there are some people that know who I am in real life that do not need to know my drug history. THAT'S why I don't want to go deep into it.
Once the horse is dead, you can't kill it again. All debates come to an end don't they? It just seems like you play the Devil's Advocate card WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much and never actually agree with anything anyone says......ever. So yeah. That's why I can't deal with the endless threads with diction that just reaks in a condesending tone.
I'm wichked smaht too ya know.
So yeah. let's talk about something else and I will be more than happy to debate you. I just thought this thread ran its course.
Abomination
I don't think PCP is safe, but I don't think it should be Illegal.
Datura is far worse then PCP. Anyone who thinks differently has never tried Datura.
Datura is more a poison then anything else. 5 kids have died in my area this past month from Datura.
I do not go into long details about illegal drug use and experience because I own the forum and there are some people that know who I am in real life that do not need to know my drug history. THAT'S why I don't want to go deep into it.
...no one asked you to go "deep into it". Since when was this a competition over who has smoked the most weed? I don't give a shit about your experience, and there's no need for you to go into any detail about your drug use. Why should it be necessary for me to know your drug history in order to discuss with you what effects the legalization of marijuana would have on the economy? I fail to see the correlation.
Again, having experience on a subject doesn't mean that no one can challenge you on it, or that you'll automatically be right on every issue concerning it. This might be a "frustrating" revelation to you, but it's the truth, nonetheless.
Quote:
Once the horse is dead, you can't kill it again. All debates come to an end don't they? It just seems like you play the Devil's Advocate card WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much and never actually agree with anything anyone says......ever. So yeah. That's why I can't deal with the endless threads with diction that just reaks in a condesending tone.
I'm wichked smaht too ya know.
So yeah. let's talk about something else and I will be more than happy to debate you. I just thought this thread ran its course.
It's super easy to unspecifically say someone is playing devil's advocate when it means you don't have to actually address the points they have raised. Let's call it what it really is: a discussion cop-out.
I don't play devil's advocate, I put thought and cognitive effort into my posts. And since when do I have an obligation to agree with people more often? I'd rather be honest. Sure all debates come to an end (or at least the logically should--both sides can't be correct), but to suggest that the reason you don't have a rebuttal is because I'm playing devil's advocate is not only a contradiction, it's untrue. You say you'd be happy to debate me on another topic, but of course, this isn't the first time you've accused me of playing devil's advocate, which apparently renders you unable to deal with the "endless threads". What's going to stop you from making the same excuse again? I don't think the real problem is me arguing semantics or playing devil's advocate, I think it's cognitive laziness.
I actually decry people who try to drag out arguments after they've been made to look like a fool just so they can get the last word in(not suggesting that is what happened here), and I've repeatedly highlighted that no one is actually under obligation to respond to a post just because they're not in agreement with it, but this whole "agree to disagree" business is just weak. It's an attempt to end the argument, while at the same time, reminding everyone that you still disagree without further addressing any of the points that have been raised.
Linear Mode
