3 ms·

Who cares? You're missing the forest for the trees. Alcohol is still legal and kills thousands (millions?) times more people. If we can't discuss that, being co

by throwaway19972 2y ago

Who cares? You're missing the forest for the trees. Alcohol is still legal and kills thousands (millions?) times more people. If we can't discuss that, being correct has no value. If the only thing you want to contribute is to point out a lie, why have the conversation in the first place? It's just wasting everyone's time.

The_Colonel 2y ago
Not lying is a basic precondition to have a reasonable discussion. Pointing out lies serves to facilitate discussion. Why is that controversial?
- throwaway19972 2y ago
  > Not lying is a basic precondition to have a reasonable discussion. No, it isn't. Secondly, you're assuming malice where it doesn't appear there is any. Third, you're perfectly capable of communicated despite this, and certainly more than pointing out a disagreement over facts. Why comment at all if you only want to point out disagreement and don't appear willing to discuss the bulk of the commentary? Meanwhile, "good faith" actually is a precondition for decent conversation. EDIT: Meanwhile, googling "marijuana death penalty singapore" turns up way, way too many results for this to be likely to be an entirely false claim. So from my perspective you basically killed the conversation while contributing nothing of value. Eg https://apnews.com/article/singapore-death-penalty-drugs-execution-6f796226fb60d0313a5b63929c4fed59 https://apnews.com/article/singapore-death-penalty-drugs-exe...
  - The_Colonel 2y ago
    > Secondly, you're assuming malice where it doesn't appear there is any. I take such an extreme case of misrepresentation / exaggeration as an attempt to mislead readers, which for me is malice. > Why comment at all if you only want to point out disagreement I didn't point out a disagreement, but a wrong fact. > Meanwhile, googling "marijuana death penalty singapore" turns up way, way too many results for this to be likely to be an entirely false claim Let me cite from the article you linked: "The man, ..., had been imprisoned for seven years and convicted in 2019 for trafficking around 1.5 kilograms (3.3 pounds) of cannabis" - how is that strengthening op's case that you get executed for smoking a joint? > So from my perspective you basically killed the conversation while contributing nothing of value. I'm happy to discuss things once facts are settled. You're killing the conversation by this weird insistence that setting facts straight is wrong?

The_Colonel 2y ago

Not lying is a basic precondition to have a reasonable discussion. Pointing out lies serves to facilitate discussion. Why is that controversial?

throwaway19972 2y ago
> Not lying is a basic precondition to have a reasonable discussion. No, it isn't. Secondly, you're assuming malice where it doesn't appear there is any. Third, you're perfectly capable of communicated despite this, and certainly more than pointing out a disagreement over facts. Why comment at all if you only want to point out disagreement and don't appear willing to discuss the bulk of the commentary? Meanwhile, "good faith" actually is a precondition for decent conversation. EDIT: Meanwhile, googling "marijuana death penalty singapore" turns up way, way too many results for this to be likely to be an entirely false claim. So from my perspective you basically killed the conversation while contributing nothing of value. Eg https://apnews.com/article/singapore-death-penalty-drugs-execution-6f796226fb60d0313a5b63929c4fed59 https://apnews.com/article/singapore-death-penalty-drugs-exe...
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  > Secondly, you're assuming malice where it doesn't appear there is any. I take such an extreme case of misrepresentation / exaggeration as an attempt to mislead readers, which for me is malice. > Why comment at all if you only want to point out disagreement I didn't point out a disagreement, but a wrong fact. > Meanwhile, googling "marijuana death penalty singapore" turns up way, way too many results for this to be likely to be an entirely false claim Let me cite from the article you linked: "The man, ..., had been imprisoned for seven years and convicted in 2019 for trafficking around 1.5 kilograms (3.3 pounds) of cannabis" - how is that strengthening op's case that you get executed for smoking a joint? > So from my perspective you basically killed the conversation while contributing nothing of value. I'm happy to discuss things once facts are settled. You're killing the conversation by this weird insistence that setting facts straight is wrong?