Oh my goodness... Even Stringer, the ever persistant one has stopped this nonsense... Please rlrlrl I understand that you have different views with bimmer but all you do is nitpick at little snippets without validating your own opinions... If you're just picking on bimmer for the sole reason that you are being rubbed in the wrong way by bimmers opinions, just let it go and everybody can go on with their lives.

---

UWO 2012

You're nitpicking again. I think I have explained my viewpoint thoroughly enough through this debate that you don't need to take a snippet of one of my first posts (which I later clarified) and view it as if I had a total different opinion. But I can understand where the confusion occurs, since I DID say drug users should get treatment instead of prison time with no explanation added. However, I DID make a clarification on my very next post, so I don't believe I am at fault. If I had said "No Drug users should EVER go to prison, EVER!" in my first post, and then said "Drug users SHOULD go to prison!", you would have a case. But we both know that wasn't the case. I said, "I would rather drug users get the treatment they need rather than go to prison..." and THEN "of course, repeat offenders SHOULD face jail time". So it's really simple to tell where I stand by connecting the dots.



I don't understand. Please clarify.



I'll take full responsibility for that. My selfish qualities took the better of me and I was absolutely fuming to get a response in. I was actually hoping that you would end on a "okay, I have my views and you have yours" type of post, so that I would look like the victor. But as we both know, that wasn't the case...



So what is your perspective? I'm tired of having to clarify my posts to you while you haven't provided me with anything to respond on. It seems like a one-sided battle for me... a lose-lose situation.

---

UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012

I'm sorry, but this whole discussion is way overblown, almost to the point of being pathetic. Who cares what some username on the internet said? It's not like your ever going to meet them, and your not going to marry them...so go find something better to do with your time. Seriously.

---

UWO 2012 - Biological & Medical Science
UWO > Every other school

I agree that it has been overblown, but it is quite discomforting to be called "pathetic" for arguing my point in a subject that I am passionate about. If this was one of those "F You", "No, F You!", then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But it's not. I do apologize for hijacking this thread (we probably should have created a new thread when it started to get heated), but I won't apologize for arguing my views, on the Internet or otherwise.

---

UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012

Okay, would you be happier if I called it an "expansion"? I said "I would rather drug users get the treatment they need rather than spend years in prison"... which was taken to mean that I was PRO-drugs, which I didn't even mention. Stringer simply used a primitive "process of elimination", concluding that since I did not want drug users in prison, that I was FOR drugs. After reading Stringer's response, I "EXPANDED" by saying that I was referring to a suspended sentence system, whereby the user has still committed a CRIME, but does not do jail time on their first offence, rather they get the help that they need.

And you're right, my first post didn't mention ANYTHING about a suspended sentence. That's why I expanded on it on my very next post.

Look at it this way:

My first post - "I would rather drug users (first time drug offenders - since we were not talking about repeat offences at this time) get the treatment they need rather than spend years in prison"

My second post - "suspended sentences rather than incarceration, repeat offenders face jail time, etc."

So if you can do the math... post #1 + post #2 = "I would rather first time offenders receive suspended sentences, and repeat offenders face prison".

What you are doing is separating the two posts and acting as if I contradicted myself. Does the suggestion of a suspended sentence actually contradict anything I said in my first post? NO! A suspended sentence means that they would get treatment rather than years in prison. I get where you are coming from with the "repeat offenders" thing, since I specifically said no jail time. However, at that time, no one had mentioned ANYTHING about repeat offences, so I only wrote what was relevant, which was first time offences. Then, as a point to prove that I am firmly against drugs, I included the "repeat offenders" section in my expansion.

So instead of treating them as two separate arguments, think of them as one, long, conjoined one, as it was meant to be.



Yeah you are nitpicking. Do you not understand the difference between JAIL and ILLEGAL? Stringer specifically said, "anybody who drinks should be in jail", to which I replied, "I never mentioned ANYTHING about jail. I would rather that drug addicts get the treatment they need than spend years in prison." Then, Stringer said the exact same thing that you said just now, that I was in fact, PRO-drugs. To which I said No, I'm obviously against drugs, but I am also against first time offenders being thrown in prisons without being given a chance, ie. suspended sentence.



Yeah... and? Remember that we are specifically referring to responsible DRUG USERS, not responsible PEOPLE. In my opinion, and in my definition of "responsible", I believe that addicts are irresponsible DRUG USERS, and non-addicts are more or less, responsible DRUG USERS. You can have a different idea of what "responsible" means, but this is how I see it. Hey, I could be totally off base. Maybe non addicts prove MUCH, MUCH more harmful to society than addicts. But with my general knowledge of drugs, this is the conclusion that I have made.



And you're obviously doing this to make me look stupid, while providing no opinion so that you don't have anything to lose. And no, I DON'T think I can win... you've formed no real stances or opinions, so I have nothing to rebut.




Huh? What, you think I'm some genius on the subject of drugs? That's a pretty weak excuse... "I don't have enough knowledge on the subject"?

You've REALLY made yourself a comfortable seat, haven't you? All you have to do is attack my opinions while having no worries about me rebutting YOUR arguments. I bet it feels real safe up there.

---

UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012

rlrlrl you seem to get some sort of weird enjoyment in picking apart what other people say. Good for you, I'm glad you have the time to waste.

---

University of Alberta - Mechanical Engineering '11

Although what should I expect on the student awards forum but nerdy kids wanting to boost their ego.

---

University of Alberta - Mechanical Engineering '11

Are you still here?

Again, there is a difference between illegal and jail. Just because you committed a crime does not mean you must go to prison, which is the same idea that Stringer had. So I haven't switched in my position that drugs are and should remain illegal. So this is finished.



YES. That is the idea of a "repeat offender". It shows that the person is unwilling or unable to reconcile their problems and must face retribution for their crimes against society. Our justice system ALREADY USES THIS! A repeat drug offender is not thrown in jail primarily because of their drug use, but rather their failure to stay on course after being given another chance, which is a clear sign that treatment is not working for them.

Secondly, I didn't say "I don't think drug users should go to jail (EVER)". And when I brought up the topic of repeat offences, I expanded, saying "I don't think drug users should go to jail... unless they are repeat offenders". And as I've explained above, repeat offenders are imprisoned not because of the nature of the crime (if it was, they would have been thrown in prison the first time), but rather their repeated failure to adhere to the law. A "warning" if you please.



Even if I had said it that way, if it was in 2 separate posts, you would still be arguing that I flip-flopped. You would be saying "Oh, you said drug users should go to jail, but now you think they shouldn't?" So your argument fails there. Also, the first post was intended for first time offences, not repeat offences.

You fail to realize that the two posts that I made (one about drug users not going to prison and the other about repeat offenders and suspended sentences) are meant to be connected to one another. Like I have already said, think of them as one post, not two separate ones. The second post was clearly an expansion of my first post. And my second post does NOT contradict my first one.

If I had a time machine, would I go back to my first post and include my second post (about repeat offences) along with it? SURE! I'm okay with admitting that the first post could have been expanded, but I didn't think of it at the time, so I came back later and expanded in another post. Maybe that confuses you, but in my honest opinion, I think even a child could tell that was an expansion, not a new argument.



Sorry?! What mistake did I make? I remember I explained MY definition of 'responsible drug user', and it was something along the lines of "knows their limits, does not place themselves in situations where they post a threat to society". And I BELIEVE that addicts are irresponsible (ie. doesn't know their limits and are much more likely to cause harm) and non-addicts are more or less responsible (ie. knows their limits, are less likely to cause harm). It's an opinion, and as I've admitted, I could be totally wrong.



Because you are grasping for flaws in my arguments, with no arguments of your own. It's not an even playing field! You are attacking my posts, and I can do nothing except defend against your attacks. If you actually had an opinion, then I could attack your posts and you could react. Do you not understand that? Think of it like this... you have a rifle, and I am weaponless. I am standing in front of hundreds of bottles of flammable gas. When you start shooting, I can try to stop the bullets from hitting the gas, but I can't shoot back.



At least with Stringer, we were debating about our views on drugs. You've dragged this into a debate about words and misconceptions. It should have ended the first time I explained myself. Again, all of the posts that I have made haven't been arguments against you... they have been defenses against your accusations.

Why would I accuse someone who's not even playing the game of cheating? In fact, you ACTUALLY sound like a child... no metaphor or analogy.

---

UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012

---

"My parents live in Ohio; I live in the moment." -himym.