3 ms·
I also disagreed with the parent comment, but meta point: I'm not sure down voting is fair in this situation. Parent seems genuine and earnest in their comment.
by gdubs 13y ago
I also disagreed with the parent comment, but meta point: I'm not sure down voting is fair in this situation. Parent seems genuine and earnest in their comment. It seems like it'd be enough to simply reply with the counter point...
- mullingitover 13y agoI haven't seen an etiquette guide for HN anywhere, but if we can't downvote the promotion of bad science journalism, what can we downvote?
- nilkn 13y agoHateful, bigoted posts, of course.
- anigbrowl 13y agoIt isn't promotion of bad science journalism. It's a crap story, but there are 3 other links in there too. I'm strongly pro-legalization and think the concerns are overblowon, but a lot of people are using the 'bad science' complaint to silence a point of view they dislike.
- mullingitover 13y agoIt's true, I do find the old 'think of the children' appeal to emotion, and the trotting out of the 'gateway drug' myth to be distasteful. However, I'm not silencing anyone's point of view--I don't have admin rights on HN, just the ability to rate comments.
- frozenport 13y agoIts reasonable journalism. Certainly nothing worse then Legalize It! stuff I have seen that claim cannabis will cure all.
- TylerE 13y agoI think it is. Posting sources that are trivially debunked subtracts, rather than adds to the discussion.
- nanidin 13y agoThe poster is attempting to incite our fear for the children as a reason to fear the legalization of marijuana. He neglects to mention that Colorado has a 21+ policy, just like alcohol. He's ultimately arguing for a nanny state since he feels he is incapable of raising his children without them consuming the drug. In short, he's sensationalizing, and that's not doing anyone any good.