**** Elections thread *****

[MadMojoMonkey]

First, I didn't have a question about the benefits of PCP use. I said you were wrong about culture not caring about things being patently dangerous, and gave several examples, of which PCP was only one.

In all your examples, you show that our culture values other things above the perception of danger.
Indeed, that danger is something we are willing to take in mass doses for a perceived benefit. (Coal pollution is far worse danger to the future of the world than any single person's harm.)

PCP was the outlier in that you seemed to say there was no perceived benefit and that's why it's illegal.
To which I questioned why (or what is it about) the personal nature of the benefit makes it different.

Second, I think it's not relevant because it wasn't fundamentally important to the validity of my argument. In other words, if you remove the PCP example, like so:

"We assess things in terms of risk/benefits. Driving a car involves a risk but it's such an efficient way to get from point A to point B that people are generally willing to accept the risk. Coal plants involve risks but we live with it (for now) because it's a cheap source of energy. "

then it's still true that you were wrong in saying:

Then you made my point and tell me I'm wrong in the same breath?

I don't know what you're talking about if you say, "Look at these things which are legal and dangerous." and also say, "You are wrong that society isn't concerned with this kind of danger." That doesn't mesh. Clearly we value other things much more than the threat of danger. I.e. we don't value this kind of danger on a legal level.

If you want to change this into an argument about the relative benefits of PCP instead and whether it should be legal or not, then that's a different argument.

Dude. You are the one who brought up PCP. I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying about it and why.

You brought up the idea that there is no benefit to PCP, and that's why it's illegal. To which I question what you mean by benefit. Surely you acknowledge that the person taking PCP perceives benefit, yet you seem to discard that person's benefit.

How do you justify this?

Is danger a reason we put forth in this society to repeal freedoms? Not exclusively, no. In fact, there are so many examples of dangerous activities which are legal that the whole notion that danger plays a role in the reason for laws is thin at best.

I don't think your argument is sufficient to explain this.