DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Queueftof** · 04-23-2010, 05:10 PM

Assuming your .later stated purpose, your response to me makes little sense because I was commenting on the ability of stoned people to drive under the influence. The fact other people may or may not pose a danger on the road is irrelevent to that point. The faster you can grasp that apparently complex point that I wrongly thought was simple and uncontraversial the better.
I don't care. Argumentum ad populum isn't evidence of anything.

No surprise that something didn't make sense to you... since it seems little ever does. It's also not surprising that others could understand it and you still don't.

Again, since you have never done so yet... please show us all where I said that I think it's OK to drive stoned... OH THAT'S RIGHT, YOU CAN'T, because I never did.

So maybe you should think again about who is the one making sense here. It's obviously not you.

04-23-2010, 05:10 PM	#29
Queueftof Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 460 Senior Member	Assuming your .later stated purpose, your response to me makes little sense because I was commenting on the ability of stoned people to drive under the influence. The fact other people may or may not pose a danger on the road is irrelevent to that point. The faster you can grasp that apparently complex point that I wrongly thought was simple and uncontraversial the better. I don't care. Argumentum ad populum isn't evidence of anything. No surprise that something didn't make sense to you... since it seems little ever does. It's also not surprising that others could understand it and you still don't. Again, since you have never done so yet... please show us all where I said that I think it's OK to drive stoned... OH THAT'S RIGHT, YOU CAN'T, because I never did. So maybe you should think again about who is the one making sense here. It's obviously not you.
	Quote