Quote from commonsense
Really? Comparing the rape and molestation of a child to the legalization of drugs, you guys are stretching just a little bit. But hell, lets see if i can make some ridiculously insane comparisons of my own that make absolutely no sense
1. All non-religious persons could transfer their thoughts and beliefs to others, therefore they should all be executed. (Rhetorical argument: Because a given sub-culture espouses doctrine contrary to the greater society, they should be exterminated. In context, that is anarchy. It is a valid position, but it is self-limiting in expansion and development. Might-makes-right, but eventually siomeone mightier comes along.)
2. If a child is old enough to be alone in a shopping mall, they are old enough to work in the sex industry. (Non-sequiter, different actions and non-consequential.)
3. If a person is allowed to take a life in self-defense, we should make murder legal. (Non-sequiter, different actions and non-consequential.)
4. According to the bible women are supposed to be submissive, therefore there is no such thing as rape in a marriage. You have centered on Biblical argument, so, in context, I may simply state that you are wrong. Ephesians 5:25, Colossians 3:19 are both direct and clear- some men simply choose to ignore the imperative. http://www.prca.org/articles/family/family_5.html (But, again-Rhetorical argument: If the desire of the individual is declared to have primacy, "moral wrong" resides entirely within the individual. Ergo, there is no "abuse", only misunderstanding of individual desire.)
5. If a person is diagnosed with a mental illness, they should be locked up or executed to prevent harm to anyone else. (Rhetorical statement: "If an individual exhibits mental illness which causes persistent, irrevocable danger of intentional harm to the society, they should be executed. If an individual exhibits mental illness which causes persistent, irrevocable danger of severe injury through diminished capacity, to the individual and/or the society, they should be institutionalized. These are logical, "if X, then Y statements", event-then-consequence, and may be supported on an evidentiary basis.)
6. If we legalize drugs, we should legalize child abuse. (Rhetorical argument: If the desire of the individual is declared to have primacy, "moral wrong" resides entirely within the individual. Ergo, there is no "abuse", only misunderstanding of individual desire. Assuming one is willing to rephrase, and not simply dismiss as another non-sequiter.)
I guess it's like the bible says in passage 5:16 "You can't cure stupid."
You have a logical fallacy. Your arguments(hypothetical statements) are hyperbole, and cannot be equated.
In summary: The case for legalization is centered on the concept of "individual right to choose". Economics, "Gubmint control", social oppression, and social criminalization are the tools of argument, but they are not the argument itself. The root of legalization is, "I want".
The only way this argument can be validated is through moral relativism, i.e., there are only
situational/individual ethics, because the individual's rights take precendence over those of the social group. This is the definition of sociopathy, is it not- I know right and wrong, they just don't always apply to me...?
We experienced the same thing with Prohibition, and came to the "agreement" that we are willing to kill several thousand of our fellows, a fair number of whom do not
imbibe, for that "right."
Now, if you have an argument, with "if X, then Y" statements that may be shown to be cause-effect and consequential, by all means, but being derogatory and pejorative:
I guess it's like the bible says in passage 5:16 "You can't cure stupid
is the device of those who lack substance in position, and/or have not thought through the actual consequences of said position.