Sessions issues sweeping new criminal charging policy

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

Maybe you've heard of an argument by analogy. It's one of the most common methods by which human beings engage in inductive reasoning.

Yes seriously.

Except that isn't a correct analogy. As was pointed out more eloquently than me by the poster above.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Is one's own body not their own, and how can the government legitimize their doctrines of official protection of one's body from one's own self-desires?

Because the effects of drug use and addiction go far beyond ones own body.

a reply to: underwerks

Except that isn't a correct analogy. As was pointed out more eloquently than me by the poster above.

It is a correct analogy. No one said poaching is the same as dealing drugs, and you guys are busy punching your strawman to dispute it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
So you're ok with drug dealers, even the small ones, being able to sell illegal drugs to minors that are killing them due to additives they add to their drugs just to make more profit? Are you ok with drug dealers destroying communities and devalueing others property due to their presence?

Oh sweet! A "what about the children!?!" defense. I was wondering when someone would try this silly argument. Hey guy, there is nothing preventing a drug dealer from selling to a criminal, but legal sales have a MUCH harder time of being sold to children due to regulations and the government shutting your shop down if you do.

Just because a drug dealer hasn't had any violence charges doesn't mean they aren't violent. They tend to pay others to take care of that business anyways. It seems to me you don't personally know the extent of the crimes they commit. It's not just all black and white. There are many little details to drug dealers that make them terrible people.

Drug dealers are merely entrepreneurs. Don't like who they are selling to then legalize the drugs so you can regulate that aspect.

Ok, well I guess we will just have to disagree. I really don't think we should have a heroine shop at the end of the corner, regulated or not. To call my argument silly just shows how closed-minded you are. I don't understand how wanting justice for the damage these scumbags create in communities is a silly argument. Are you a drug dealer?

a reply to: muzzleflash

I also want to add that you are venturing into dangerous territory here.

Because of your strong support of the current administration you are experiencing a type of bias that prevents you from realizing right from wrong. This is NOT normal for you at all.

It is impossible for a political administration in the US to do everything right. It's OK that they are wrong on this issue, because the US Policy towards drugs has been wrong for an entire century and that's status quo.

I highly suggest you pick battles more carefully and be open to the concept that they (the admin) screws up. I also request that you reevaluate your positions and take into account the fact that you have been beset by heavy bias.

I say this as an outsider who doesn't really like either parties and is in a much more neutralized political vantage point.
My post right before this one asks the truly hard questions. Please take note of it.

Your assumption is that you know right from wrong, and that I do not realize it.

I suggest you come up with a better argument.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

Maybe you've heard of an argument by analogy. It's one of the most common methods by which human beings engage in inductive reasoning.

Yes seriously.

"Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed."

1) Please articulate the 'similarities' between poaching and personal drug consumption.
2) Please explain why the differences are negligent.
3) Please explain the further similarity that has yet to be observed but is the point of your argument by analogy.

I am afraid you have made a very poorly constructed analogy this time.

In order to determine the strength of your analogy these criteria are a good guidepost:

Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy:
-The relevance (positive or negative) of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion.
-The degree of relevant similarity (or dissimilarity) between the two objects.
-The amount and variety of instances that form the basis of the analogy.

In addition this applies:

The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to engage in a detailed examination of analogical reasoning. One of Mill's examples involved an inference that some person is lazy from the observation that his or her sibling is lazy. According to Mill, sharing parents is not all that relevant to the property of laziness

Another example is:
Person A: "I think that people can have some affection for their cultural heritage."
Person B: "You're just like Hitler!"

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not going to pretend to be thrilled with this, the war on drugs needs to be completely ended. HOWEVER, trump did run on law and order. Holder issued a directive to subvert the law because he didn't agree with it (well, obama didn't, IDK about holder). That's not how things work in this country. If you don't like the law, you petition congress to change that law.

It is not the place of the DoJ to subvert the law.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: muzzleflash

I also want to add that you are venturing into dangerous territory here.

Because of your strong support of the current administration you are experiencing a type of bias that prevents you from realizing right from wrong. This is NOT normal for you at all.

It is impossible for a political administration in the US to do everything right. It's OK that they are wrong on this issue, because the US Policy towards drugs has been wrong for an entire century and that's status quo.

I highly suggest you pick battles more carefully and be open to the concept that they (the admin) screws up. I also request that you reevaluate your positions and take into account the fact that you have been beset by heavy bias.

I say this as an outsider who doesn't really like either parties and is in a much more neutralized political vantage point.
My post right before this one asks the truly hard questions. Please take note of it.

Your assumption is that you know right from wrong, and that I do not realize it.

I suggest you come up with a better argument.

That 2nd response wasn't an argument.
It was a personal observation that you have allowed party politics to cloud your usually great capacity for discernment.

a reply to: muzzleflash

1) Please articulate the 'similarities' between poaching and personal drug consumption.

No, because I clearly did not say their was similarities between poaching and "personal drug consumption". Straw man:

2) Please explain why the differences are negligent.

No.

3) Please explain the further similarity that has yet to be observed but is the point of your argument by analogy.

No.

What I can do for you is, as I did before, show you how that reasoning is ridiculous.

a reply to: muzzleflash

That 2nd response wasn't an argument.
It was a personal observation that you have allowed party politics to cloud your usually great capacity for discernment.

I'm not sure your psychological assessment is able to breach your own feelings.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: muzzleflash

1) Please articulate the 'similarities' between poaching and personal drug consumption.

No, because I clearly did not say their was similarities between poaching and "personal drug consumption". Straw man:

2) Please explain why the differences are negligent.

No.

3) Please explain the further similarity that has yet to be observed but is the point of your argument by analogy.

No.

What I can do for you is, as I did before, show you how that reasoning is ridiculous.

Please point me to where you showed anyone their reasoning is ridiculous.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: muzzleflash

Is one's own body not their own, and how can the government legitimize their doctrines of official protection of one's body from one's own self-desires?

Because the effects of drug use and addiction go far beyond ones own body.

The affects of sex go far beyond one's body.
The affects of sugar usage go far beyond one's body.
Lack of exercise, smoking cigs or drinking coffee, alcohol, tea, what have you.

We have health care costs as a major effect (the population overall ends up paying many of the bills).
But we also have ecological effects such as the need for large plantations, pollution, or even the economic issues that prevail as a result of these types of commodities being allowed free reign in the marketplace.

In fact, people that allow disabled or mentally retarded children to live are causing massive effects on other people in our society. For example I'm tired of waiting 10minutes in the public transportation system for wheelchair bound people to get on and off the bus. Or I have to drive on the same streets as mentally compromised folks who might be on mental health medications? How dangerous.

Your argument justifying government authority to regulate a person's health leads to an extremely totalitarian system where we no longer have any property rights at all - if we take it towards it's extreme.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Your argument justifying government authority to regulate a person's health leads to an extremely totalitarian system where we no longer have any property rights at all - if we take it towards it's extreme.

Again, that's not my argument.

My argument is the same as Session's memo, none of which advocates government authority to regulate a person's health. Clearly his argument is for the rule of law.

a reply to: underwerks

Please point me to where you showed anyone their reasoning is ridiculous.

I was responding to your post about cartels. You know exactly what I am talking about.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes you DID INFER that poaching is comparable to the legality of drug use IN THIS CONTEXT.

Here is exactly what happened in this thread:

Underwerks said:
"Exactly. The last thing the cartels want is decriminalization and legalization of anything. That puts an end to their power and money."

You responded:
"So? Poachers want to keep poaching illegal. It doesn't mean we should legalize poaching."

Argument 1 was:
"Cartels do not want decriminalization (because it destroys their business)."

Your argument from analogy was:
"Poaching is equivalent and similar, but we should not legalize poaching just because it destroy's the poaching cartel"

My counter to your false analogy was:
"Poaching violates property rights. Drug use, in of itself, does not violate property rights."

a reply to: muzzleflash

Yes you DID INFER that poaching is comparable to the legality of drug use IN THIS CONTEXT.

Here is exactly what happened in this thread:

Underwerks said:
"Exactly. The last thing the cartels want is decriminalization and legalization of anything. That puts an end to their power and money."

You responded:
"So? Poachers want to keep poaching illegal. It doesn't mean we should legalize poaching."

Argument 1 was:
"Cartels do not want decriminalization (because it destroys their business)."

Your argument from analogy was:
"Poaching is equivalent and similar, but we should not legalize poaching just because it destroy's the poaching cartel"

My counter to your false analogy was:
"Poaching violates property rights. Drug use, in of itself, does not violate property rights."

Strawman again, sir. Your treading on dangerous territory with your overuse of the fallacy.

I inferred only that the specious reasoning is the exact same, and used poaching as an example.

a reply to: muzzleflash

well the OP supported somebody else using female genital mutilation as a good analogy too. I don't really see why we need any analogies. The topic, and what the memo actually says stands on their own fairly well.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: muzzleflash

Your argument justifying government authority to regulate a person's health leads to an extremely totalitarian system where we no longer have any property rights at all - if we take it towards it's extreme.

Again, that's not my argument.

My argument is the same as Session's memo, none of which advocates government authority to regulate a person's health. Clearly his argument is for the rule of law.

Arguing for the rule of law when these statutory laws on the book are highly questionable and perhaps most likely Unconstitutional is disingenuous at best.

If the law said that Eugenics and Mass Executions were legalized, arguing for the rule of law is insane and not a valid argument because the issue of morality and human rights trumps that argument.

You are forgetting the concept of 'Spirit of the Law vs the Letter of Law', which is a higher value than merely the Rule of Law.

The Spirit of the Law is that "Law" is intended to promote Justice and resolve conflicts amicably within reason to promote the betterment of society and human relationships. BUT, if the Letter of the Law or it's methodology of Interpretation and Enforcement becomes corrupt and immoral, than it's Spirit is Lost.

You are arguing from the Pharisees position of "Letter of the Law at all costs no matter how many rights are violated simply because the authoritarian wrote it down as law so no matter how evil it may be it is the law so follow it or You're the Criminal!" This argument is insanity.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

Please point me to where you showed anyone their reasoning is ridiculous.

I was responding to your post about cartels. You know exactly what I am talking about.

How is that ridiculous again?

You have to understand, there's a big disconnect between our drug policy and reality. I realize it sounds counterintuitive to someone who hasn't experienced it up close, but it isn't.

Drug war advocates preach that coming down harder on dealers and users and jailing them somehow makes our country better and safer.

The way it works in reality, is that by coming down harder on users and dealers, you make the price go up. Which gives more money and by extension power to those same dealers and cartels you're supposed to be fighting against.

So it becomes an arms race, so to speak. The police goes after the drug dealers, and in doing so makes them more powerful, then the police have to step up again, and go harder against the drug dealers, and on and on, until there really isn't a difference between them.

Crazy idea that by giving people the freedom to change their consciousness legally, the cartels and gangsters and violence associated with the drug trade would disappear, huh?

But then again, if the cartels and gangsters were out of business, Sessions and his friends in the private prison industry would be as well..

a reply to: underwerks

Big money and special interests dominate our governmental apparatus.

The well being of society overall is not really a major concern. It only becomes a concern if societies' well being drops to so low a level that it threatens to jeopardize those $pecial Interests.