Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs • Hacker News Board

Re: Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs

#141

Post by dang » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 6:55 AM UTC

JUDAS wrote: post #139

dang wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you please stop using HN for religious and ideological battle? That's not what this site is for, and we ban accounts that do it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I don't think I'm "supposed" to give a response but I kinda did. Well, hot dang. HN seems to be about sharing information and discussion, I merely did the former, also, an ideology is a belief system, religions are basically a set of values. If you read the text you should see it's just snippets of facts (historical in nature, and yes those two people have their agendas for the interview as far as illumination and an…

HN is not the place for this. I've banned this account.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

Re: Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs

#142

Post by lwhalen » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 9:34 AM UTC

To answer the author's question, "why do these molecules promote boundless love", it is selection bias. There's surely molecules that produce abject, existential, pants-filling terror, but those molecules dont get shared around in a communal setting, if they get shared at all.

Re: Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs

#143

Post by JUDAS » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 10:11 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #141

JUDAS wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I'm "supposed" to give a response but I kinda did. Well, hot dang. HN seems to be about sharing information and discussion, I merely did the former, also, an ideology is a belief system, religions are basically a set of values. If you read the text you should see it's just snippets of facts (historical in nature, and yes those two people have their agendas for the interview as far as illumination and an…

HN is not the place for this. I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

You mean shadow/hell/slowbanned banned I assume, disturbing practices. But aw, good for you.

Wrote that stuff late at night, actually think differently about it now, interesting as it is for me to explore those thoughts in writing, in a personally pretty unattached Socratic way, I'm not gonna bother again. Doesn't have to do anything with you. But if it did it wouldn't spur me on to a having a dialogue, seeing it as you choose to react like this.

Maybe you're seeing every nail as a problem, maybe I really am unreasonable, though I don't see any evidence of it, and seriously doubt it. Life's short, do what you want dude, I'm just being overly "generous" in choosing to respond, misplaced as it is.

Kiss the rings and grovel at my feet, yah, nah. You're actually the one who's on trial, banning without reason abuse of power. If you can't see it now, you're clueless. Waste of time to try to convince someone to be reasonable (logos) who's aim is the very opposite. Byeo.

Re: Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs

#144

Post by lifeisstillgood » Tue, Jul 03, 2018, 9:38 PM UTC

headsoup wrote: post #21

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree - in fact I am starting to look at fats and sugar as drugs at least as harmful long term as some "real" drugs. When you look at coca cola adverts and big supermarkets as pushers, things start to become much clearer and the scale of the struggle on obesity really is startling. So yes, I am in favour of democratic nanny states.

You don't need a nanny state as a solution. In fact that's bad as it leaves people to believe they don't need to critically think about things because 'nanny' has them covered. They need better regulation, education (not the systemic industrial kind currently provided) and discussion. Marketplace of ideas and all that.

Late to reply but thanks for the comments

The UK at the moment seems to have a bad case of regulation == nanny == bad

Whenever I hear someone saying thing s are over regulated, it means they have a great wheeze to scam someone out of cash if only it was allowed.

I fully believe that education is great and sensible regulation to the benefit of all but my core assumption about designing a society is to have sane defaults

The simplest would be something like SAYE (Save As You Earn) where your employer pushes 10% of your paycheck into a index isa each month from the age of 18.

Basically if you do nothing but accept the default, you arrive at 55 years old with a pension.

(effectively that's what is happening now in UK with pensions)

The defaults for society should leave us with a decent floor - and it's up to us to raise the ceiling.

Call it a nanny state, sensible regulation, or the only way to release a distro