The Fentanyl Crisis is finally solved....

[Gadianton]

Yes the are....addicts love the different cocktails.

Fentanyl addicts don't want Fentanyl cocktails and your link does not demonstrate that they do. Cocaine isn't a reasonable substitution good for the masses of Fentanyl users. Fentanyl is mixed with cocaine not as a variety drug for the typical Fentanyl user but as a party drug. The primary reason why Cartel fentanyl is mixed with cocaine is to make the cocaine more addicting or to dilute the cocaine because its less expensive. This is a possible tactic I brought up instituting in our own program in the very first post. The cartel Fentanyl dealers we're taking down are also the distributors of cocaine and so all your picture shows is that when we take over/bust all the fentanyl dealers, the other drugs like cocaine and heroin go down at the same time.

So how many employees will you have?

No so many that it will be difficult to fulfill the roles. If it's too costly to provide users counseling, markk, then as I said before, your dumb ass plan with Trump is already dead before it started. Trump isn't focusing on users one bit. If you believe Fentanyl can be wiped out by destroying the supply chain then I don't need a second phase. We just take over the market, and once we've made sure we've got the whole thing. We simply go away. If you think users can find something else in some unspecified way, then the same is true for Trump's plan.

--

The China scenario is not apples to oranges just because you say so. And your use of the word "strawman" gets worse over time. China did not rely on executions to make their program work, quite the opposite.

Markk, I thought about your question for about one minute before answering the first time. I didn't have the details entirely worked out and certainly we're up for making changes if we need to. Whether a certain segment of users in my plan get their product from a pharmacy with counselor approval or directly from a counselor hardly matters. The fact you raise this as startling contradiction displays your own inability to reason; not mine.

If this discussion has proven anything, it's that you have severe doubts that the demand side of the drug crisis can ever be fixed. If that's true, then Trump is wasting our time and money because his plan will also fail as he doesn't even have a phase B or phase C at all. So basically, a good deal of your criticisms of my plan extend to Trump's non-plan.

I think this is where I end it, unless you come up with something that hits the interesting meter above a one. In short, the most valid parts of your responses center around the significant difficulty of transitioning users. Given Trump has nothing at all for that, you're admitting Trump's plan is a failure before it even left the gate.

[Markk]

That is just another straw-man based on your hope that this plan would some how work.

Has anybody previously remarked on Markk's use of the term 'straw-man'? He seems to be using it here and elsewhere mainly as a way of saying to his opponent 'your argument is weak or based on false assumptions'. But that is not at all what it means in the normal usage of terms for fallacies in argument.

Here is one of many pretty well identical definitions of the term that you can find online:

Straw man fallacy

"A straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts or exaggerates another person’s argument, and then attacks the distorted version of the argument instead of refuting the original point. By using a straw man, someone can give the appearance of refuting an argument when they have not actually engaged with the original ideas."

This source has the advantage of dramatising an example of a real straw man fallacy as follows:




Just saying ...

I stated the relapse back to addiction is over 50%, Gad, stated that, "Not if there are no suppliers anymore. Remember, I'm even getting rid of legal fentanyl of all kinds by the end of phase B."

So given you have read Gad's theory, and must agree with it, do you see a weak or imaginary argument (straw-man) with his statement here?

Keep in mind the different scenarios he has presented.

[Markk]

Fentanyl addicts don't want Fentanyl cocktails and your link does not demonstrate that they do. Cocaine isn't a reasonable substitution good for the masses of Fentanyl users. Fentanyl is mixed with cocaine not as a variety drug for the typical Fentanyl user but as a party drug. The primary reason why Cartel fentanyl is mixed with cocaine is to make the cocaine more addicting or to dilute the cocaine because its less expensive. This is a possible tactic I brought up instituting in our own program in the very first post. The cartel Fentanyl dealers we're taking down are also the distributors of cocaine and so all your picture shows is that when we take over/bust all the fentanyl dealers, the other drugs like cocaine and heroin go down at the same time.

That is just false. Drug Cocktails have been popular sense I can remember. By brother was addicted for a short time in Vietnam on "speed balls," heroin and speed. They had some of the best heroin on earth in Nam, but it was still popular to mix with speed (meth).

And the link was more in context with what is coming over, not just fentanyl, and your theory that these folks won't use these other drugs, either as a cocktail or exclusively, is just naïve.

If they can't get fentanyl, they we certainly use heroin. In fact your plan starts (see your OP) with the true premise that fentanyl is easier to manufacture than heroin because it is synthetic. If you take away fentanyl, heroin will be the number 1 street opioid, again.

You just went full circle back to heroin; and Mexican fentanyl...that would surely be in shipments similar to the link below.

https://x.com/sbcountysheriff/status/17 ... 14/photo/1

[Chap]

Here is one of many pretty well identical definitions of the term that you can find online:

Straw man fallacy

"A straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts or exaggerates another person’s argument, and then attacks the distorted version of the argument instead of refuting the original point. By using a straw man, someone can give the appearance of refuting an argument when they have not actually engaged with the original ideas."

I stated the relapse back to addiction is over 50%, Gad, stated that, "Not if there are no suppliers anymore. Remember, I'm even getting rid of legal fentanyl of all kinds by the end of phase B."

So given you have read Gad's theory, and must agree with it, do you see a weak or imaginary argument (straw-man) with his statement here?

Keep in mind the different scenarios he has presented.

If Gadianton puts forward a weak or imaginary argument in support of his case, that is not a straw man.

A straw man fallacy, as explained above is "when someone distorts or exaggerates another person’s argument, and then attacks the distorted version of the argument instead of refuting the original point."

The clue is in the name - there is another person whom you want to fight. But that person is quite big and strong, and you don't think you can beat them. So instead you make something like a scare-crow stuffed with straw (a straw man), and beat that up instead, claiming that you are fighting the other person and winning.

Even if you do not understand that explanation, I really think everybody else reading this does understand. So please stop telling people that their argument is a straw man, just because you don't think it is a strong or well-based argument. It makes you look a bit silly.

[Moksha]

[Markk]

Chap: If Gadianton puts forward a weak or imaginary argument in support of his case, that is not a straw man.

Sure it is. When he makes a statement as a factual premise ( there are no more drug suppliers in the US) , to support a weak and or imaginary conclusion ( making it impossible for an addict rehabbing to relapse), that is a "staw-man based" argument, as I wrote, and is both weak and imaginary.

There are many different types and definitions of a straw-man fallacy, If you want to call it something else fine. What would you call it?

Are you allowed to either agree or disagree with Gad's theory here; is doing so allowed in your tribal by-laws? You offer nothing to the conversation other than negative drive by ad hom's towards me that are meaningless.

What do you think of Gad's plan?

[Chap]

There are many different types and definitions of a straw-man fallacy

Let's think. I have limited time to waste on talking to Markk. Shall I bother to search out all the definitions of 'straw-man' fallacy that agree with the definition accepted by many highly educated people I have interacted with over a considerable lifetime, including several people whose study has been in the field of philosophy, i.e. as follows:

"A straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts or exaggerates another person’s argument, and then attacks the distorted version of the argument instead of refuting the original point. By using a straw man, someone can give the appearance of refuting an argument when they have not actually engaged with the original ideas."

or shall I simply say to Markk "Nope. The expression 'straw man' is not applicable to any weak or baseless argument. It is restricted to the case defined above. You are degrading a quite useful and precise expression by misusing it as a vague term of abuse." I think I'll go with that, and let the readers of this board judge.

I wonder how many of them will agree with Markk?

[I Have Questions]

I stated the relapse back to addiction is over 50%, Gad, stated that, "Not if there are no suppliers anymore. Remember, I'm even getting rid of legal fentanyl of all kinds by the end of phase B."

So given you have read Gad's theory, and must agree with it, do you see a weak or imaginary argument (straw-man) with his statement here?

Keep in mind the different scenarios he has presented.

If Gadianton puts forward a weak or imaginary argument in support of his case, that is not a straw man.

A straw man fallacy, as explained above is "when someone distorts or exaggerates another person’s argument, and then attacks the distorted version of the argument instead of refuting the original point."

That is 100% correct Chap.

[Markk]

There are many different types and definitions of a straw-man fallacy

Let's think. I have limited time to waste on talking to Markk. Shall I bother to search out all the definitions of 'straw-man' fallacy that agree with the definition accepted by many highly educated people I have interacted with over a considerable lifetime, including several people whose study has been in the field of philosophy, i.e. as follows:

"A straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts or exaggerates another person’s argument, and then attacks the distorted version of the argument instead of refuting the original point. By using a straw man, someone can give the appearance of refuting an argument when they have not actually engaged with the original ideas."

or shall I simply say to Markk "Nope. The expression 'straw man' is not applicable to any weak or baseless argument. It is restricted to the case defined above. You are degrading a quite useful and precise expression by misusing it as a vague term of abuse." I think I'll go with that, and let the readers of this board judge.

I wonder how many of them will agree with Markk?

You ducked my questions and responses, once again. You are ducking the very "scenario" I, right or wrong, stated was straw-man based. You have had enough time to follow this thread and throw drive by darts, you had enough time to search the nets of definitions of a straw-man argument that fits your needs. So, I think you can carve out enough time to answer my few questions to you. in my opinion you most likely believe that Gad's plan shows just how much of a nut he is on this topic as I do, and that it is a tribal thing that keeps you from offering a true review of his plan.


What is ironic here is that you have created a straw-man type of argument to keep from addressing what I wrote. I stated a question that if I am wrong, what is the fallacy in his argument here?

" he makes a statement as a factual premise ( there are no more drug suppliers in the US) , to support a weak and or imaginary conclusion ( making it impossible for an addict rehabbing to relapse). M y opinion was.....that is a "staw-man based" argument, and as I wrote, and is both weak and imaginary."

Is it better termed an informal fallacy? Ok, I am good with that. Then we can ask if a informal fallacy is a type of straw-man argument, and whether a person can build a straw-man fallacy within their own theory, as I assert that Gad did (several times).

[Physics Guy]

When he makes a statement as a factual premise ... to support a weak and or imaginary conclusion ... that is a "staw-man based" argument ... .

No, that is not what a "straw man argument" is. "Straw man" is not just what the cool kids say to call an argument weak. Even being as weak as straw, or based on a premise as weak as straw, does not make an argument a straw man. "Straw man" is a technical term with a specific meaning, and it is not controversial or optional. Some people may misunderstand the term, but the overwhelming majority of people who use the term all agree completely on what it means.

As Chap said, a straw man is a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, which ignores what they have actually said and pretends that they have said something else instead—something that is obviously stupid. The term "straw man" is a metaphor for this. It says that misrepresenting my opponent's position as something that I can easily refute is like stepping into a boxing ring, not with my actual opponent, but with a straw-filled dummy that I have prepared for myself and stood up in the ring just so I can knock it down easily, and then pathetically pretend that I have defeated the real opponent.

There are lots of kinds of bad arguments. If a bad argument does not specifically involve misrepresenting the opposing position as something weak or absurd, then that bad argument may still be bad, but it is not a straw man argument.

To deserve the "straw man" label, the misrepresentation should be pretty outrageous, and make the opponent's position out to be something really obviously stupid, or at least quite a lot more stupid than their real position is. The distorted fake version of the opponent's position should not be anything that a listener could honestly think the opponent really means, if the listener has made any reasonable effort to think about what the opponent has actually said. Simply failing to understand how strong a position really is, and attacking it in a way that misses its main point, can be an honest mistake and not a straw man fallacy. Overconfidently taking a clumsy swing at the champ is a painful mistake, but at least it's not just grandstanding in front of a fake opponent.