IntenseDebate - hansenkd

14 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - CU-Boulder deploys pol... · 1 reply · 0 points

Seriously, you're still arguing your offensive point? Race is not a choice. Smoking weed is a choice. You consider it "unjust" that you are forbidden to inhale a harmful substance and damage your testicles. I do not consider it unjust. So it's a matter of definition. Since I don't agree that it's unjust, why even continue the argument? There's also the little matter of common sense. It's subjective and intangible, but comparing your "right" to get high with somebody's right not to be profiled or denied jobs based on the color of his or her skin is patently offensive. And you REALLY stumbled by equating discrimination to "hurt feelings." Wow. You just continue to say offensive things.

I'm not going to continue to argue something so obvious anymore. Any person of color who has ever been discriminated against should be offended by your argument that your choice to light up is in any way comparable to an inborn trait that cannot be changed. The "class" argument is a red herring too, since you fail to specify whether "class" is choice-based or inborn.

14 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - CU-Boulder deploys pol... · 1 reply · -2 points

Yeah, yeah. Anybody who doesn't think that smoking weed is a god-given right would elicit the same comment. Anybody who opposes a shameful display of idiocy is a troll. Given the sheer volume of your pro-stoner posts, "attention seeker" would be pretty apropos to you, wouldn't it? Yawn.

14 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - CU-Boulder deploys pol... · 3 replies · -2 points

OK, since you insist on being obtuse. Laws against racial equality hurt many people. Laws against recreational use of a harmful substance hurt nobody--unless you consider it harmful that you can't get stoned.

And THAT, my friend, is self-evident.

14 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - CU-Boulder deploys pol... · 3 replies · -4 points

"Schooled" is a matter of perception. You were caught in a lie about your own words and are using weasel words to wiggle yourself out of it. It's very clear what you meant. "little doubt you would have commented much the same then too." That's more than an "implication." That's a flat-out accusation. You are a piece of work.

14 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - CU-Boulder deploys pol... · 0 replies · -4 points

Something that rests upon substance abuse being a "civil liberty," but whatever.

"I made no claim on which people support what."

Another lie. You said "little doubt you would have commented much the same then, too."

You are really digging a deep hole for yourself with your extraordinarily faulty "logic."

14 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - CU-Boulder deploys pol... · 5 replies · -2 points

No, I didn't make it up, I quoted you:

"You missed the 60s when the comments were in support of all the "sad" law-breaking occurring in the South ... though little doubt you would have commented much the same then, too."

Please, pray tell how else that can be interpreted. I'm on pins and needles waiting for it...

14 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - CU-Boulder deploys pol... · 7 replies · -3 points

Interesting. You say something inexcusable, then instead of attempting to justify it, you flat-out lie about what you said and then appeal to "logic" in an attempt to say that you didn't say what you said. Can't see how that tactic will win any debate, but it's a typical response when somebody is called out on saying something outrageous...but I didn't REALLY say it...

14 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - CU-Boulder deploys pol... · 9 replies · -3 points

"You missed the 60s when the comments were in support of all the "sad" law-breaking occurring in the South ... though little doubt you would have commented much the same then, too."

There are your words. Their meaning is very clear. The implication is that people who oppose pot now would support segregation then. There's no other way to read it. So you lied about what you said.

And water won't mess up your testicles by ingesting it.

14 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - CU-Boulder deploys pol... · 12 replies · -4 points

You said that people opposing pot now would have supported segregation then. That is presumptuous and offensive, and there's no way to justify it.

14 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - CU-Boulder deploys pol... · 6 replies · -3 points

Wow, this really needs to be spelled out for you? Fighting for racial equality is not the same as fighting for the right to abuse a harmful substance. That IS pretty self-explanatory, and for you to equate them is a slander and an insult to those who fought for racial equality. Absolutely unbelievable!

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with hansenkd

People I'm following

hansenkd