Severity. Where do you draw the line in severity. That is what I'm asking you. What activity would you place a line on and say "anything more severe than this is worthy of punishment no matter what the age or lifestyle of the individual".

I've always been of the opinion that recreational drug use is alright, as long as it isn't endangering others. The law says otherwise of course, but that's my opinion. Something that involves intentionally harming others is what I would consider reprehensible. I was never personally arguing for age or lifestyle to be taken into account, I don't have much of an opinion there.

Actually, no, it's quite relevant. Where exactly do you place the line between smoking pot and murdering 17 people?

What line? They are two absolutely different crimes with vastly different severity between them. One's a misdemeanor, and the other is more likely than not to get you life imprisonment, perhaps the death sentence.

Severity. Where do you draw the line in severity. That is what I'm asking you. What activity would you place a line on and say "anything more severe than this is worthy of punishment no matter what the age or lifestyle of the individual".

I've always been of the opinion that recreational drug use is alright, as long as it isn't endangering others. The law says otherwise of course, but that's my opinion. Something that involves intentionally harming others is what I would consider reprehensible. I was never personally arguing for age or lifestyle to be taken into account, I don't have much of an opinion there.

So where exactly do you draw the line? Ecstasy? MDMA? Salvia? Cocaine? Heroin? Fistfighting? Stabbing someone?

That's completely irrelevant. I was just pointing out a logical fallacy.

Actually, no, it's quite relevant. Where exactly do you place the line between smoking pot and murdering 17 people?

What line? They are two absolutely different crimes with vastly different severity between them. One's a misdemeanor, and the other is more likely than not to get you life imprisonment, perhaps the death sentence.

Severity. Where do you draw the line in severity. That is what I'm asking you. What activity would you place a line on and say "anything more severe than this is worthy of punishment no matter what the age or lifestyle of the individual".

I've always been of the opinion that recreational drug use is alright, as long as it isn't endangering others. The law says otherwise of course, but that's my opinion. Something that involves intentionally harming others is what I would consider reprehensible. I was never personally arguing for age or lifestyle to be taken into account, I don't have much of an opinion there.

How exactly is it a strawman argument?

I don't think anyone here is defending the act of murdering 17 people. Quite simply, the act of smoking pot is a lot harder to attack than murder.

So where exactly do you draw the line? Ecstasy? MDMA? Salvia? Cocaine? Heroin? Fistfighting? Stabbing someone?

That's completely irrelevant. I was just pointing out a logical fallacy.

Actually, no, it's quite relevant. Where exactly do you place the line between smoking pot and murdering 17 people?

What line? They are two absolutely different crimes with vastly different severity between them. One's a misdemeanor, and the other is more likely than not to get you life imprisonment, perhaps the death sentence.

Severity. Where do you draw the line in severity. That is what I'm asking you. What activity would you place a line on and say "anything more severe than this is worthy of punishment no matter what the age or lifestyle of the individual".

I've always been of the opinion that recreational drug use is alright, as long as it isn't endangering others. The law says otherwise of course, but that's my opinion. Something that involves intentionally harming others is what I would consider reprehensible. I was never personally arguing for age or lifestyle to be taken into account, I don't have much of an opinion there.

It only sounds correct when spelled pae.

It's pronounced differently as well as spelled diffrently.

It paedophile sounds like 'pee'dophile to you right? For pedophile the ped sounds more like the 'ped' sound in petal.

considering the word origonates from the greek word (which by the way is spelt pae)
i think ped is not only wrong but fucking retarded

im not the best speller in the world

differently*

No. No it doesn't. L2Linguistics, pedophile is the more broadly accepted spelling. In fact, paedophile is strange since ae = æ = Ä, which is the same sound as the A in Apple (Southern American accent), which makes paedophile sound retarded.

In short: Kill yourself, Britfag. Sincerely, Sweden.

What lovely people I'm meeting on the internet!

Be less of a moron and I'd be nice to you.

Even if you think I'm wrong, it's the correct way to write this particular word in my country. You know, the country that invented the word... (it was never used in ancient greek and would not even mean the same thing as it does in English

It actually means the exact same thing in Greek as in English, considering it's a literal translation. Child lover. The same thing.

Regardless of who "invented" the word, spelling and pronounciation will always be subject to change. Otherwise, you'd still be saying vindoye instead of window. And you don't. Shocking, isn't it? Language isn't static, and currently the primarily accepted spelling is pedophilia. Using æ for the spelling is only done by a minority and you should NOT be correcting people on using the generally accepted spelling, you dumb cunt.