Odd question, dont understand the answer

But the arguement isn't that ecstasy isn't dangerous. The arguement is that it's blown out of proportion. Hence why I don't think Point 2 is a valid counter arguement. As we know horse riding is dangerous, and we know that esctasy is dangerous, maybe even less so, but the campaigning agaisnt esctasy is out of proportion compared to say, horse riding.

nope, lnat you have to read massive ass, purposefully obscure passages, each of about a side of a4 in type. you get 12 of them.

as for the argument, number 2.
if horse riding was dangerous, what would saying 'ecstasy is less dangerous, therefore we shouldn't worry about it' achieve?
let's think of a dangerous example to illustrate it.
'ecstasy is less dangerous than Russian roulette, therefore it is not dangerous'.
can you see how the argument rests upon the example not being dangerous? all we need to say to counter that argument is: "although russian roulette/ horse riding is more dangerous, that doesn't mean that ecstasy isn't".

hope that helps.

I understand what you both mean, but I can see why the argument allows 2 to be correct. Because whilst it does imply that the ecstasy campaign is "blown way out of proportion" it does also state that "those campaigns are not necessary", suggesting that ecstasy is not dangerous enough, concluded from the fact that is causes less deaths per year than horse riding, hence horse riding isn't as dangerous.

However it does also show that ecstasy is no where near as dangerous as horse riding in terms of figures, where the figures for horse riding represent high levels of danger.

You could certainly argue both ways.