Good morning beautiful ladies, gentlemen, folks, creatures, entities, and others. Fellow creature Mimi here :spinny_cat_plural: on my way to Karlsruhe for GPN :kyuuchan_run: where I will meet many other ladies, gentlemen, folks, creatures, entities, and others :ablobcatbongo:
Our train is on time, can you believe it, it's on time :fridey: it's not like I was begging for a late train voucher or anything:fridey:
Next stop: Stuttgart! Then we take whatever we can to Karlsruhe. :kyuuchan_run:
@amie@social.treehouse.systems I don't possess them illegally, one thing I can think of is when I joked that I should have "told the cops it was ibuprofen". Maybe that caused this misunderstanding.
And wait wait wait didn't you just say that "you shouldn't shame others for using drugs [...] even if they've shamed you for using them before"? But now it's okay for you to do this because you think I've done it before?
I don't remember taking stabs at you for abusing drugs. I did call you out for the way your polycule pushes others to do drugs but that's a whole other thing. If I did make fun of you for using drugs, let me know, that was a lapse in judgement on my end and I wanna remove that.
Why do so many people ignore the lights on the dishwasher telling you to add salt and rinsing aid? How can you see a light and think "it's probably nothing"
When constructing an argument against someone who uses or abuses drugs, it can very tempting to hold this fact against them, even if that doesn't contribute to the argument.
This fallacy is prevalent, even among people who claim to have a positive opinion of drugs. Amie used it against me like a week ago. I think it is common for two reasons.
First, the perception that drug users—or drug abusers—are evil. This idea might stem from war on drugs propaganda. It might also stem from the correlation between drug use and mental health issues.
When you stigmatise drug users, you stigmatise the kind of people who are more likely to use them, these are underprivileged people and those who are ill—mentally or physically.
Second, drug abuse can hurt others. When it does, it's a legitimate injury for which one should be held accountable. But this argument gets unduly generalised. People don't always get hurt, and the harm stems from negligence, not intent.
Therefore, if the people you're arguing for haven't been harmed, then there's no reason to think a drug abuser has an intent to hurt others. It's not a good argument.
And while debaters are prone to falling into this fallacy, I think their audience recognise it easily. These claims look random and unwarranted, they come off as personal attacks.
At least, I hope so. Because as I explained, these arguments are hurtful to responsible drug use in society, to underprivileged people, to the person being attacked, and as every fallacy, to good discourse. Please, avoid using them unwarrantedly.
What's the appeal of electric lighters, compared to refillable butane lighters? That's what I'm wondering at 2 AM.
Convenience? I think butane lasts longer than the battery of an electric lighter, but I don't know, I never tried. Still, is charging that much more convenient than filling a butane tank?
Is it better for the environment? I don't think so. The carbon footprint from lighting up that tiny amount of butane has to be insignificant. On the other hand, electric lighters contain a battery and electronics which has a pretty bad environmental impact in itself. I'm also not convinced that they'd be particularly energy efficient.
That leaves us with the fact that electric lighters work well in the wind, I guess.