Reggaedoc,HL ,Historian and X ticketed

[Sir X]

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013...ana-possesion/

[HL]

Caught speeding and get ticket for likkle weed. (I take it he got a speeding ticket also?).

The police officers should be ashamed.

[Historian]

I See....

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013...ana-possesion/

Okay, let us ignore Jamaica’s myriad social and economic problems and go ahead and legalize marijuana. Let us ignore the multilateral treaties and legalize marijuana. We are big and bad, and we fear no man or country or organization!

Boss, in the same way that you are enthusiastic about the legalization of the weed, it’s the same way that I am sure that Jamaicans will come to bitterly regret the day it was legalized, should parliament eventually legalize it! You think inter-regional travel is challenging for Jamaicans now? Just you wait and see what real challenge is should parliament move for legalization!

I have nothing more to say on this matter right now, but trust me, the last thing an extreme, psychotic-leaning society like Jamaica needs at this time is widespread use of the weed by Jamaicans, and I’m not only referring to unemployed Jamaicans! But then again….we long ago showed the world in a very clear manner that, as a country, we have a deep-seated, unshakeable death wish.

Have a wonderful weekend, X my friend.

[Reggaedoc]

Okay, let us ignore Jamaica’s myriad social and economic problems and go ahead and legalize marijuana. Let us ignore the multilateral treaties and legalize marijuana. We are big and bad, and we fear no man or country or organization!

Boss, in the same way that you are enthusiastic about the legalization of the weed, it’s the same way that I am sure that Jamaicans will come to bitterly regret the day it was legalized, should parliament eventually legalize it! You think inter-regional travel is challenging for Jamaicans now? Just you wait and see what real challenge is should parliament move for legalization!

I have nothing more to say on this matter right now, but trust me, the last thing an extreme, psychotic-leaning society like Jamaica needs at this time is widespread use of the weed by Jamaicans, and I’m not only referring to unemployed Jamaicans! But then again….we long ago showed the world in a very clear manner that, as a country, we have a deep-seated, unshakeable death wish.

Have a wonderful weekend, X my friend.

Well said Storian. Thanks.

[Rockman]

I think your post is ad hominem.
LA is as psychopathic as it gets but where is is the evidence that legalizing(all you need to do is go to a doctor,who really isn't overly depressed from living in this sad world)weed has made LA or anywhere else worse?
My guess is the only time a tourist is arrested Jamaica for weed is when it is for exportation, smart unwritten rule but nevertheless a hypocritical one.
Let us follow the lead of those that staunchly object to our sovereign country legalizing it,how about for medicinal usage?

[Sir X]

Its not a debate anymore , its all about highlighting the ridiculous ,keep it up guys, Tell it to the DA & MD.

[Sir X]

Well said Rock , the rationale to hide behind treaties has been proven by others to be a hanging rope cc: Colorado, Mex, Brazil , Uraguay ,Peru, Bolivia even Colombia...keep it up Historain and the Doc.

[Sir X]

I have a question about treaties- economic /trade/tourism , how should we feel when we criminalise a tourist that has ganja legal in his state or nation - reduced to a ticket ?

How should we feel ?

How should they feel about our backward treaty , why they come to Jamaica and other tourist destinations nations are weed friendly ?

You guys only highlight the ridiculous .

[Historian]

You Sound Like a Teenager

Well said Rock , the rationale to hide behind treaties has been proven by others to be a hanging rope cc: Colorado, Mex, Brazil , Uraguay ,Peru, Bolivia even Colombia...keep it up Historain and the Doc.

Do you understand the ramifications of treaties between countries, in particular those between Third World countries like those in our Caribbean region and the global superpowers?

Do you really always understand the harsh realities of some of the things that you type, or do you just post for the sake of posting? For example, since when has Jamaica had the international clout of major players like Brazil and Mexico?

This matter of “sovereignty” raised by Rockman above sounds nice to the average Jamaican’s ears, so I suspect that this overused noun (“sovereignty”) has influenced the later comments you made today. Rockman felt that my post was “ad hominem” instead of being directed to the crux of what you typed (which is untrue, but nevertheless probably happily accepted by you).

So, I think I now understand the background/reason for the stuff you posted above.

[Rockman]

Regarding my thinking your post was ad hominem,this dangerous drug weed pales in comparison to pharmaceutical drugs that our people are being fed.There is a stigma wrongly attached to weed and you propagate it with ad hominem criticism. Another example is your criticism of X.
Attaching an increase in violent behavior to weed(already) users because of it becoming legal runs afoul of the evidence,and the driving force has to be stigmatization of weed.

A more solid point you made(in my opinion)is the reaction of the external forces that are so important to Yard.
They arrogated that right, and are actually already playing a counterproductive role to our country.

[Sir X]

@ Historain ....The ridiculous!

I undersatnd it all too well , our forgein policy is based on a colonial legacy that we cant move or do anything unless the master says so , even when the master is doing the opposite of what he preaches.

Thats the strongest arguement I have heard from you about keeping ganja illegal, the ramification of treaties , all the others are smoke in the air (aggresive behaviour, pschy, zombies , lazy) ridiculous .

I am not the only(Teenager) that shares this vew of legalization- treaties , professor Barry Chevaness , the various governmental studies (our government) .They have made the case that it cost more to criminalise (keep it illegal) , than to legalise and tax.

Smaller nations like jamaica will soon rush in that line of decriminalising because of the tourist driven ganja friendly market of our competitors , mexico, costa rica etc , dont dismiss it as teeanager rhethoric, thats a fact!

O.K my trap has been laid , you think Jamaica would criminalise a tourist for 10 years with under our buggery laws , or a day ? I believe 10 years is the punishment under the law, you see thats how ridiculous we look , now look at our ganja laws and weigh it underthose circumstances against our competitors ? 1st look at it like they all do , from a business point of view , the cost to criminalise, 2nd the benefits of legalisation, 3 rd the social cost - treaties has a financial incentive to it ( how the world views us and want to trade with us ) i.e tourist market.


Like i said you guys argue along the ridiculous , its not a debate anymore ...from a teenager perspective.


So why do we keep this illogical policy that is disproven by the day , mental slavery , it has been ingrained in us to hate ourselves(culturally) , every bit of it , and ganja use in jamaica is cultural it isnt going anywhere , so too is the criminalisation but that is slowly dying and that is is sad part , slowly!

[Exile]

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.
Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.
But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. By your own argument, the set of rodents is a subset of the set of mammals; and therefore, a weasel can be outside the set of rodents and still be in the set of mammals."

Hopefully it should be clear that neither A's argument nor B's argument is ad hominem. Perhaps there are some people who think that any disagreement is an ad hominem argument, but these people shouldn't be allowed out of fairyland.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow."

B's argument is less comprehensive, but still not ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. You evidently know nothing about logic."

B's argument is still not ad hominem. Note that B directly engages A's argument: he is not attacking the person A instead of his argument. There is no indication that B thinks his subsequent attack on A strengthens his argument, or is a substitute for engaging with A's argument. Unless we have a good reason for thinking otherwise, we should assume it is just a sarcastic flourish.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. This does not logically follow."

B's argument is still not ad hominem. B does not imply that A's sentence does not logically follow because A knows nothing about logic. B is still addressing the substance of A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic."

B's argument is, most probably, still not ad hominem. The word "evidently" indicates that B is basing his opinion of A's logical skills on the evidence of A's statement. Therefore, B's sentence is a sarcastic way of saying that A's argument is logically unsound: B is attacking A's argument. He is not attacking the person instead of the argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You know nothing about logic."

Even now, we can't conclude that B's reply is ad hominem. It could well be, and probably is, the case that B is basing his reply on A's argument. He is not saying that A's argument is flawed because A knows nothing about logic; instead, he is using A's fallacious argument as evidence to present a new argument: that A knows nothing about logic.
Put briefly, ad hominem is "You are an ignorant person, therefore your arguments are wrong", and not "Your arguments are wrong, therefore you are an ignorant person." The latter statement may be fallacious, but it's not an ad hominem fallacy.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. And you're an *******."

B is abusive, but his argument is still not ad hominem. He engages with A's argument. There is no reason to conclude that the personal abuse of A is part of B's argument, or that B thinks it undermines A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You're an *******."

B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem. There is no evidence that's his abusive statement is intended as a counter-argument. If it's not an argument, it's not an ad hominem argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. And you're an *******."

Again, B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "**** you."

Not ad hominem. B's abuse is not a counter-argument, but a request for A to cease the discussion.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, so this can't be true."

B's argument here is ad hominem. He concludes that A is wrong not by addressing A's argument, but by appealing to the negative image of A the person.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a moron and an *******, so there goes your argument."

B's reply here is ad hominem and abusive.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a rodent and a weasel, so there goes your argument."

B's argument here might appear on superficial inspection to be sound, but it is in fact ad hominem. He is using the terms "rodent" and "weasel" in different senses to those used by A. Although he tries to make it appear that he is countering A's argument by invalidating one of the premises, he is in fact trying to counter A's argument by heaping abuse on A. (This might also be an example of an ad homonym argument.)

A: "All murderers are criminals, but a thief isn't a murderer, and so can't be a criminal."
B: "Well, you're a thief and a criminal, so there goes your argument."

Harder to call this one. B is addressing A's argument, but perhaps unwittingly.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Wrong! If a weasel isn't a rodent, then it must be an insectivore! What an *******!"

B's argument is logically fallacious, and he concludes with some gratuitous abuse, but nothing here is ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the opinion of a trained zoologist on this one."

B's argument is ad hominem: he is attempting to counter A not by addressing his argument, but by casting doubt on A's credentials. Note that B is polite and not at all insulting.

A: "Listen up, *******. All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A is abusive, and his argument is fallacious, but it's not ad hominem. B's reply, ironically, is ad hominem; while he pretends to deal with A's argument, in using the term "ad hominem" incorrectly, B is in fact trying to dismiss the argument by imputing that A is resorting to personal attacks.

A: "Listen up, *******. All rodents are mammals, and a lizard isn't a mammal, so it can't be a rodent."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A's argument is sound, and not ad hominem. B's reply is again ad hominem.

A: "B is a convicted criminal and his arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A's argument is ad hominem, since it attempts to undermine all of B's (hypothetical) arguments by a personal attack. B's reply is not ad hominem, since it directly addresses A's argument (correctly characterising it as ad hominem).

A: "All politicians are *******s, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're an *******."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."

If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound. Either way, from the given context, we cannot conclude that it is ad hominem: it's not an attempt to undermine B's (hypothetical) arguments by abusing him, but instead an attempt to establish that B is an *******. B's reply is ad hominem, since by incorrectly using the term "ad hominem", he is trying to undermine A's argument by claiming that A is resorting to personal attacks.

A: "All politicians are liars, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're a liar and your arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."

If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound; but I think most of us would sympathise with B and class it as fallacious, and ad hominem. This is because we do not accept the premise that all politicians are liars. There is a false premise that lies behind all ad hominem arguments: the notion that all people of type X make bad arguments. A has just made this premise explicit.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "That does not logically follow."
A: "*Sigh* Do I have to spell it out for you? All rodents are mammals, right, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal! What's so hard to understand???!?"
B: "I'm afraid you're mistaken. Look at it logically. If p implies q, then it does not follow that not-p implies not-q."
A: "I don't care about so-called logic and Ps and Qs and that stuff, I'm talking COMMON SENSE. A weasel ISN'T a mammal."
B: "Okay, this guy's an idiot. Ignore this one, folks."
A: "AD HOMINEM!!!! I WIN!!!!!"

Although the last line of B, taken out of context, might look ad hominem (and was seized upon as such by A), it should be clear that taken as a whole, B's argument is not ad hominem. B engaged thoroughly with A's argument. He is not countering A's argument by saying A is an idiot; on the contrary, having logically countered A's argument, and having seen A's reaction, he is arguing that A is an idiot.

Source:http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

[Sir X]

Yes Professor , craziest instrctor I ever had was a philosophy instructor .But i understood it... AD HOMINEM ....lol

[Exile]

Morning...

[Sir X]

Morning to you sir , crazy champs, it seems ISSA made good money , its site was down , from not being able to handle the volume i hope.