Poll: Do you smoke marijuana? • Hacker News Board

Re: Poll: Do you smoke marijuana?

#101

Post by tokenadult » Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 4:24 AM UTC

gyom wrote: post #98

tokenadult wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drugs last a finite amount of time and then you are back to exactly who you are now. To the contrary, the best evidence shows that some drugs can cause permanent (or at least very long-lasting) changes in brain chemistry or brain structure.

I read that line as : "if you're not enjoying your experience at all, don't worry, it'll wear off after a few hours". I don't think anyone will claim here that the worst drug abuses won't cause long-term damage, but it's not the point.

Having a new experience also doesn't leave you back where you were before the experience.

Re: Poll: Do you smoke marijuana?

#102

Post by Tichy » Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 9:01 AM UTC

zimbabwe wrote: post #95

Tichy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When is the novel coming out - title?

I self-published, since I was in high school at the time. I'd rather not say the title here, since I'd like this account to remain semi-anonymous, but if you'd like I'll gladly mail you a link to the book online.

Please do. Email address is in my profile.

Re: Poll: Do you smoke marijuana?

#103

Post by petercooper » Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 12:48 PM UTC

bdr wrote: post #81

zimbabwe wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker News is where the literate, success/money-minded bright people come. Perhaps this is elitist, but I'd bet that this community is thinner, richer, and more socially capable than most communities online. Probably younger as well, since there's the whole core of high school/college YC wannabes, myself included.

Besides us being thin, the bigger problem is that his joke is totally cliche.

In Soviet Russia, cliches are jokes.

Re: Poll: Do you smoke marijuana?

#104

Post by JulianMorrison » Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 10:55 PM UTC

Eliezer wrote: post #100

jacoblyles wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone whose main preaching is a religion of caution and skepticism, you speak with a lot of moral certainty. Why should holding a very common view (which probably not a lot of thought went into) make a person a "horrible human being"? I even allow that some of the people that disagree with us might have good reasons for doing so. Should I excise a person from the company of "the good guys" because one of his fa…

Okay, you're right. I amend my statement to read that people who support drug criminalization are either horrible human beings, or stupid human beings who haven't spent much time thinking about who their righteous opinions might hurt in real life, and who as voters are directly partially responsible for the said pain. Is that an excuse? I suppose it's better than causing the pain on purpose.

Still too condemning.

The problem is the huge inferential gap between the facts on the ground, and people who don't know, don't know that they don't know, have been taught that they do know, have been taught to actively resist learning otherwise, and who are constantly reinforced by most everyone with whom they are in close personal or cultural contact.

Re: Poll: Do you smoke marijuana?

#105

Post by jacoblyles » Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 7:02 AM UTC

Eliezer wrote: post #100

jacoblyles wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone whose main preaching is a religion of caution and skepticism, you speak with a lot of moral certainty. Why should holding a very common view (which probably not a lot of thought went into) make a person a "horrible human being"? I even allow that some of the people that disagree with us might have good reasons for doing so. Should I excise a person from the company of "the good guys" because one of his fa…

Okay, you're right. I amend my statement to read that people who support drug criminalization are either horrible human beings, or stupid human beings who haven't spent much time thinking about who their righteous opinions might hurt in real life, and who as voters are directly partially responsible for the said pain. Is that an excuse? I suppose it's better than causing the pain on purpose.

I would hope that someone in your position of authority would be less willing to reinforce the uncivil and dangerous group-think that pervades our society. Viewing those that disagree with you as evil or stupid is the strongest symptom of thought-ossification. The act of "condemning the other" can summon powerful forces to your side. But in the long run it is harmful. We would be better off if people were less comfortable using it as a tactic.

Seeing Eliezer Yukodsky use it himself does not set a good example.

Hell, I'm on your side on the particular issue at hand. It just turns my stomach to see people use such cheap rhetorical tactics, even if I agree with them. Especially if I agree with them.