Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek
It is also notable that in their letter for the actual exercise of legislative power, the forum participant(s) advocating that exercise say nothing about drafting a law for legalization with a lower age limit of 21 to restrict access to adults, nothing about keeping felony penalties for providing access to those under 21, nothing about a blood alcohol limit for drivers (say 5 ng/ml like legislation Washington and Colorado), and nothing about maintaining current restrictions on manufacture, importation, and distribution of other drugs. The actual legislation they are advocating opens the gate without any reasonable boundaries.
|
Using the above quote from Mathgeek as an example i am now going to demonstrate how association is truly a fine scientific method.
It is notable that mathgeek originally discussed child prostitution, another forum commenter stated that comparing child prostitution to cannabis use was "hurting his argument". Since Mathgeek did not dispute this with the other commenter or offer any further explanation we can infer the following.
1) Mathgeek supports ongoing child prostitution, and the organizations that fund them.
2) Because of his support for child prostitution, there is a very high probability of likelihood that Mathgeek is also a pedophile.
Does anyone else see that it's not surprising that Real Science does not use this method?
I hope you got something better than this in your bag of tricks MG.