>I was kind of reticent to actually come out and say "This website is obviously acting in bad faith and we should actively be hostile to things it suggests beca

>I was kind of reticent to actually come out and say "This website is obviously acting in bad faith and we should actively be hostile to things it suggests because of that". But you did it anyway with great gusto. >Go to the NYTimes website, go to the opinion section, at the top of the page you'll find a big banner saying "Opinion" and a byline that describes the author and the detail they're contributing to the opinion side of the paper. You're not wrong that it should probably be labeled as an editorial or something. But if you rely on such labels you're doing it wrong. Very few things, even in the precious NY Times, are presented with zero slant, regardless of the section it's in. >I tried to express reasonable and valid criticisms of its fundamental failures to adhere to basic ethics, and in response you want to accuse me of approving of drugs and hating people who hate drugs. It's just as obvious that you are writing from a biased standpoint as it is with the author of this article. I don't know the exact source of your disdain but it is clear to me that it isn't simply the technical or moral issues you've mentioned thus far. I think you have a vested interest in drugs being permitted more despite the risks, perhaps because you are or have been a regular user. >I think we can leave it to anyone reading this conversation to decide which of us needs to go touch grass. Lol it seems I touched a nerve.