ineffabelle | (no subject)

(no subject)

it's funny how people haven't become crazy anti-car freaks the way they have with drugs, since almost everyone knows someone that died in a car accident.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

well your talking about two different things really. No one is in the alley dealing cars or sucking dick for the next four wheel fix.

agreed, it's totally different. cars don't change the quality of your interaction with people, they only intensify it.

if you have a car, you're giving yourself the illusion of being in control, and we as a state/society give the big thumbs-up, otay to that. if you have drugs, you're giving yourself the illusion of being out of control, to which we say, nuts.

what a fantastic way of looking at it!

The way I see it is that there are billions of safe drivers out there. There are times when things get out of control by accident or by some drunk person.
With drugs you know you are wanting something to get crazy.

It's not a different thing to people whose line of thinking goes "I know [x number of drug deaths, or particular situ re. drugs" therefore "drugs bad." Those same people are *not* likely to say "I know [x number of car deaths, or particular re. cars" therefore "cars bad." I think the point she's making is that that line of thinking is applied inconsistently, *not* that it's the only line of thinking. For the people who do the logic she outlined, "I know [x number of blow jobs] re. drugs" therefore "drugs bad" is NOT part of their syllogism.

I'm not arguing against the diffs you bring up, but you're skipping the (il)logic she's pointing out in one enthymeme and bringing in a completely different enthymeme. The point is about logic before it's about drugs.

Or what am I missing?

Wel that's what I am saying. There is too much logic and over thinking put into something that doesn't need it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only