This is some COLD logic

[Passionario]

So let's take three hypothetical non-productive basement dwellers: Bob, Tom and Alice.

Bob spends his free smoking weed and listening to obscure 70's bands, Tom prefers to drink cheap beer and watch porn, and Alice just plays WoW all day (badly). None of them contributes much to the society, yet only one is considered to be a dangerous hardened criminal that needs to be incarcerated or otherwise "removed" as soon as possible.

Frankly, I fail to see any logic here, COLD or otherwise.

[Lightbeard]

Wommen Killing Child->Prison->Whether or not being gay is a choice->Prison again->Weed

[Lightbeard]

So let's take three hypothetical non-productive basement dwellers: Bob, Tom and Alice.

Bob spends his free smoking weed and listening to obscure 70's bands, Tom prefers to drink cheap beer and watch porn, and Alice just plays WoW all day (badly). None of them contributes much to the society, yet only one is considered to be a dangerous hardened criminal that needs to be incarcerated or otherwise "removed" as soon as possible.

Frankly, I fail to see any logic here, COLD or otherwise.

You're missing the important part of this post. Is Alice hot?

[Passionario]

Wommen Killing Child->Prison->Whether or not being gay is a choice->Prison again->Weed

Yeah, this thread is awesome. So many controversial topics, and no flame war so far.

At this rate, we might even manage to have a proper civil discussion regarding evolution theory and creationism.

[gtechman]

So let's take three hypothetical non-productive basement dwellers: Bob, Tom and Alice.

Bob spends his free smoking weed and listening to obscure 70's bands, Tom prefers to drink cheap beer and watch porn, and Alice just plays WoW all day (badly). None of them contributes much to the society, yet only one is considered to be a dangerous hardened criminal that needs to be incarcerated or otherwise "removed" as soon as possible.

Frankly, I fail to see any logic here, COLD or otherwise.

Are all 3 on welfare? Since controversial topics are all the rage today.....

[Joanadark]

Wommen Killing Child->Prison->Whether or not being gay is a choice->Prison again->Weed

Yeah, this thread is awesome. So many controversial topics, and no flame war so far.

At this rate, we might even manage to have a proper civil discussion regarding evolution theory and creationism.

HEY NOW... let's not take this TOO far...

lol.

I have an aunt and uncle who are creationists, and home school their 7 kids. I was over at their house one night during leave playing a board game with my cousins, and made the mistake of referencing a dinosaur somehow. It rapidly degenerated into two college educated, otherwise rational adults very fervently explaining to me how their family "doesn't buy into that dinosaur stuff, because that whole thing about how they lived millions and millions of years ago just doesn't make sense". I was floored, muttered something about how I wasn't an expert in the field but that it was my understanding that geological layers and carbon dating allow pretty accurate estimates of fossil age and quickly steered the conversation back to the board game.

[Lightbeard]

The Earth is 2010 years old. Chuck Norris is 2011 years old. Think about it.

[Candiru]

The best way to challenge a creationist idiot isn't with science but to question their interpretation of the Bible. Since you can't use observable evidence in an argument with someone who ignores observable evidence. There aren't many creationist Jews and THEY WROTE THE GOD-DAMNED BOOK.

If the people who wrote the Old Testament don't believe in creationism, why on Earth do some 21st Century Americans?

Then ask them why they don't go to Church on a Saturday as the 10 commandments state. The Ten Commandments are the most important Old Testament laws, following them is much more important than say, not being gay, which only gets a small mention elsewhere. Going to Church on a Sunday rather than a Saturday makes you a sinner.

Or you can ask them what someone would write down for Genesis if God gave them a vision of the universe being created over several billion years, vs 7 days. Would there be any difference? What does a "day" even mean before there is a Sun and an Earth? If God is omniscient and omnipotent, why can he not choose a big bang and 1-4 billion years of evolution as the vector through which humanity is created?

How could life have been designed, when conditions on Earth previously would prove fatal to most complex life currently on the planet? Everything would have died out long ago without evolution to enable change and adaptation. Every thing about living beings is so complex and convoluted there is no way it could have possibly been designed, unless the designer was really, really rubbish.

Arrgggrgagsdfasd
</rant>

When you are a scientist, people who reject observable evidence in favour of something some preacher told them was what the Bible meant, drive you completely round the bend.

[Snake-Aes]

When you are a scientist, people who reject observable evidence in favour of something some preacher told them was what the Bible meant, drive you completely round the bend.

Tell me about it. It goes the same way with most board discussions. If the person is ignoring or handwaving the evidence, there is not point in talking.

[gtechman]

The best way to challenge a creationist idiot isn't with science but to question their interpretation of the Bible. Since you can't use observable evidence in an argument with someone who ignores observable evidence. There aren't many creationist Jews and THEY WROTE THE GOD-DAMNED BOOK.

If the people who wrote the Old Testament don't believe in creationism, why on Earth do some 21st Century Americans?

Then ask them why they don't go to Church on a Saturday as the 10 commandments state. The Ten Commandments are the most important Old Testament laws, following them is much more important than say, not being gay, which only gets a small mention elsewhere. Going to Church on a Sunday rather than a Saturday makes you a sinner.

Or you can ask them what someone would write down for Genesis if God gave them a vision of the universe being created over several billion years, vs 7 days. Would there be any difference? What does a "day" even mean before there is a Sun and an Earth? If God is omniscient and omnipotent, why can he not choose a big bang and 1-4 billion years of evolution as the vector through which humanity is created?

How could life have been designed, when conditions on Earth previously would prove fatal to most complex life currently on the planet? Everything would have died out long ago without evolution to enable change and adaptation. Every thing about living beings is so complex and convoluted there is no way it could have possibly been designed, unless the designer was really, really rubbish.

Arrgggrgagsdfasd
</rant>

When you are a scientist, people who reject observable evidence in favour of something some preacher told them was what the Bible meant, drive you completely round the bend.

Dinosaurs are in the bible...true story.

Who says all Christians believe the literal 3 days? Check it out closer without tying it to the "days". Don't just judge them all based on the few nuts that you know.

[Joanadark]

Part of what contributes to the problem I feel is that the truth can be pretty strange and complicated when you try to explain it point by point along with supporting evidence.
That saying about how reality is stranger than fiction because fiction is by nature shaped to suit ourselves holds very true. To someone who completely lacks the scientific background, holding up Occam's Razor and saying that the science sounds way to complicated and silly to fit into their perception of the way the real world works is just too easy and appealing.

There was an XKCD comic I really liked which had a tagline to the effect of "What is more likely, that your 30 seconds of amateur analysis has managed to out-think the combined study of the entire scientific community, or you simply need to read a little bit more?"

Dinosaurs are in the bible...true story.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was NOT a Raptor.

[hoho]

So let's take three hypothetical non-productive basement dwellers: Bob, Tom and Alice.

Bob spends his free smoking weed and listening to obscure 70's bands, Tom prefers to drink cheap beer and watch porn, and Alice just plays WoW all day (badly). None of them contributes much to the society, yet only one is considered to be a dangerous hardened criminal that needs to be incarcerated or otherwise "removed" as soon as possible.

Now bob runs of of weed, tom out of beer and alice out of game time. Each of them decides to take their car and restock at a shop/dealer few km's away. Order those guys in the order of danger to other drivers assuming they just got off from their activity

[Candiru]

Who says all Christians believe the literal 3 days? Check it out closer without tying it to the "days". Don't just judge them all based on the few nuts that you know.

I didn't say that all Christians are "young Earth" (or whatever it is they call themselves) creationists, just that the people who are are really really aggravating! And they tarnish by association the reputation of all Christians, unfortunately.

[Lightbeard]

So let's take three hypothetical non-productive basement dwellers: Bob, Tom and Alice.

Bob spends his free smoking weed and listening to obscure 70's bands, Tom prefers to drink cheap beer and watch porn, and Alice just plays WoW all day (badly). None of them contributes much to the society, yet only one is considered to be a dangerous hardened criminal that needs to be incarcerated or otherwise "removed" as soon as possible.

Now bob runs of of weed, tom out of beer and alice out of game time. Each of them decides to take their car and restock at a shop/dealer few km's away. Order those guys in the order of danger to other drivers assuming they just got off from their activity

Each has the munchies so they go to Burger King

[theckhd]

I'm not sure where you get "dumb" out of that. The logic seems pretty straightforward to me. If someone does something to actively disrupt the system, the solution is to stop that from happening. Can you think of another way to do so without removing, incarcerating, or rehabilitating them?

...

I chose weed as an example instead of, say, murder, because you could come up with moral arguments for why you shouldn't murder someone even if it weren't illegal. I don't think you can come up with a credible moral argument for why you'd avoid pot if it were legal.

How, exactly, does smoking weed "actively disrupt the system"? It's about as close to the definition of victimless crime as it gets.

My personal opinion is that it isn't, for many of the reasons you gave. In addition, the argument that it increases road fatalities is hard to defend unless you're also in favor of outlawing alcohol. However, it is illegal, which means that somebody decided at one point that it caused enough of a disruption to be outlawed.

Again, I chose weed instead of murder for a reason. Murder is a very obvious disruption to the system, and illustrates the logic behind laws and incarceration pretty clearly. On the other hand, it doesn't do as well for illustrating the deterrent aspect. There are very few people who can honestly say "The only reason I don't kill other people is because it's illegal." You can come up with moral reasons why you wouldn't do so even in the absence of a deterrent.

Weed is, as you described, basically a victimless crime. As such, it doesn't fit as well with the logic behind incarceration. However, it's an excellent example of deterrence. Even though casual pot use might be completely harmless, the fact that it's illegal has been enough to prevent me from ever trying it. You may not agree that it should be illegal, but it's impossible to argue that the fact that it is illegal doesn't act as a deterrent.