> drug LSD, which is used to treat conditions like depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and addiction.
Wait: I thought LSD is schedule 1, and there are no legally-sanctioned uses of it? Did something change while I was living under a rock? (Unlike MDMA, where there were legally-sanctioned experiments recently.)
MDMA, magic mushrooms, and cannabis are all also Schedule 1 by US federal law too. All it really takes though to get around it is for a state law to allow it and the state to tell the feds to go fuck themselves and close the door to them and make them challenge it in court if they want to do anything about it, which the feds don't want to do because it would cost ass tons of money to fight in court and would only further prove that drug scheduling is mostly just bullshit and lies.
Fact check: true. It's also completely up to the head of the NHS, who is currently noted drug enthusiast RFK Jr. Here's hoping he'll legalize LSD and mescaline! He's used enough mescaline and spiked enough people's drinks with it, and also forced LSD on his pet birds, so at this point it's pure hypocrisy for him to keep it scheduled. Of course, we should expect everybody to have much better morals and sense about it than he's ever had.
Is this really for HN? This is leftist piffle, conspiracy theory, and unsubstantiated allegations. I’m not sure what it adds to the discovery by this undergrad. I don’t know.
"Robert F Kennedy Jr And The Dark Side Of The Dream" by Jerry Oppenheimer, page 54:
> Back at the Kennedy compound before summer's end, away from Billings for the time being, he continued his bad behavior, feeding LSD to his parakeet, and forcing his brother David to trip on the psychedelic mescaline. Hallucinating, looking wide- eyed at his brother, he imagined the worst, screaming, "You're dying just like Daddy!"
Jerry Oppenheimer is generally considered to be a credible biographer and journalist.
That takes care of the charge of "leftist piddle, conspiracy theory, and unsubstantiated allegations." It is not piffle, it is written by a serious reported in a serious biographical piece. It is not a conspiracy theory, for it does not posit any particular conspiracy because typically those require more than one conspirator, and it is about as substantiated as many of the claims RFK Jr himself makes.
Having now established the substance of the claim I made, I shall proceed to establish its relevance. RFK Jr has a long history with drugs, as do many politicians. RFK Jr is the head of the HHS. The secretary of the HHS can initiate proceedings to deschedule drugs. It is hypocritical, given his own admitted history with drugs, to continue to imprison people for it.
For that matter, we have recently had Elon Musk (a notorious drug enthusiast) involved in the highest levels of government while actively doing copious amounts of illegal drugs. He should be in jail, like everyone else of lesser means who have been victimized by this senseless war on drugs. He won't be imprisoned, because he has money. It is the best evidence we have that the war on drugs is actually a war on the poor.
They don't care about drugs, or they'd enforce drug law evenly. Joe Rogan, a self-admitted fan of many schedule 1 hallucinogens, remains a free man in the proto-christian-nationalist state of Texas. It is hypocrisy.
It is time to end this war on drugs and move towards a sensible drug policy that is fair for all people and respects our basic freedoms.
Then, this is a good opportunity to learn more about good arguments. The supposed "refutation" amounted to "the person that wrote a tabloid biography is credible because I say he is. There, now that I have proven his credibility ..." I mean, you can't actually be serious.
Your initial rebuttal was "this is leftist piffle, conspiracy theory, and baseless accusations." It is not piffle. It is not a conspiracy theory, because no conspiracy was theorized about. It is not a baseless accusation, because I have a base for it. Yes, my refutation is more substantiated than your initial rebuttal. Cry about it. Substantiate your argument if you want it to be substantiated. Engage substantively if you want to be treated as doing such, "adult."
I started at "bronze age Protestant" and chuckled. I know you of course weren't being that serious about the exact phrasing, but of course the Protestants didn't come around until the 1500s. What that phrase put into my mind was Pilgrims showing up in the Trojan war. :)
I wasn't aware people could act so credulously in the face of obvious hyperbole.
Do you really, truly, believe this poster to be making a positive claim about when Protestants did or did not exist? If so, I weep for your social comprehension skills.
Christian moralism is an antiquated, self-contradicting, socially regressive belief system that continues to plague humanity and politics to this day. If people want to believe in Sky Daddy on their own time then that's fine, we all need a way to cope our way through the horrors of living with other humans. Your capacity to believe in Sky Daddy ends where it impinges on my freedoms, which are not granted by any imaginary deity. We should keep Yahweh (and every other unfalsifiable, immaterial, intelligence) out of the politics that govern mortal, material, extant humans. An omnipotent presence could surely argue for his own agenda in politics. It's baffling that so many narcissists believe themselves to be charged with the responsibility for advocating his agenda instead.
Oh, save your weeping for my "social comprehension skills" are fine. I saw it less as hyperbole and more of pedestrian inability to make a real case and instead malign a pretty reasonable religion. This is a website often known for being pedantic about correctness and you're incredulity at see someone not accepting passive aggressive nonsense as a valid argument seems to say more about your social comprehension skills, to be perfectly honest.
The fact that you repeatedly write "Sky Daddy" as some child on 4chan seems to also imply that you may not be aware of what kind of a site this is. I don't know. Even the meat of your argument is plainly pathetic and I meant that with no disrespect. The idea that no one can possibly make a credible argument against complete legalization of drugs, which is not to say such an argument would be correct, is sophomoric to the point that I think it may be a topic better left to adults.
It's cool that you saw it less as hyperbole and "more of a pedestrian inability to make a real case." I suppose it does take one to recognize one, your game is pretty similar to this description.
It is not passive aggression. It is active aggression. We are seeing the plague of intellectual dishonesty spread in our civilization. It is making things materially worse for people who are currently alive. We should be actively hostile against it. Anybody who's reading this, I encourage you to take up polemics against the Christian faith. Read Peter Boghossian's "A Manual For Creating Atheists."
I have arguments against the complete legalization of drugs. I think there are many valid, good, principled arguments against it. Absolutely nowhere did I raise the idea "that no one can possibly make a credible argument against complete legalization of drugs." Nowhere did I even advocate for the "complete legalization of drugs."
I did not advocate for these things because I do not believe in them as policy positions. I have not, in fact, positively claimed what policies I would like to see enacted. I have criticized the current state of affairs and stated the principles by which I'd like to see them reformed.
You are jumping to conclusions that are not substantively supported by the text you read, probably as a form of prejudice or emotional response to seeing a "reasonable religion" maligned.
I outright reject every moralistic argument from the basis of Yahweh, a deity whose holy book contains self-contradicting inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, scientific inaccuracies, and moral tragedies. Cry about it. Absolutely no deity which has commanded the sexual assault of innocent women, nor condoned chattel slavery, should ever be considered a source of moral truth. The Yahweh of the old testament is a vindictive, cruel, evil old spirit. The Yahweh of the new testament is, at best, a literary invention of Greek novelists and the charlatan Jesus of Nazareth. Did Jesus say some cool things and have some wisdom? I'd say so. Was he a scholar of the Bible? Probably. Was he the Messiah? Factually, by the messianic prophecies laid out in the old testament, the answer is a resounding "no." Any religion which both claims a text of messianic prophecy and a Messiah which fulfilled zero of those prophecies can not be considered a coherent religion, let alone a reasonable one.
Furthermore, Yahweh is 100% a Sky Daddy. His believers literally call him the holy father. The only way it even makes sense to object to the term "Sky Daddy" is because of the obvious infantilization. However, the infantilization is not my invention; merely my emphasis.
Doesn't this site say you should assume good faith? Maybe you don't know what kind of site it is, "adult."
EDIT: actually, the fact you thought calling Protestants "Bronze Age" was passive instead of active aggression does make me legitimately concerned for your social comprehension skills.
Another thing that makes me worried about your social comprehension skills is that you saw me say "your ability to believe in Sky Daddy ends where it impinges on my freedoms" and immediately jumped to "so you think all drugs should be legal??" I'm pretty sure, at this point, I'm speaking to a dyed-in-the-wool, drank-the-kool-aid, brain-is-fully-rotted theist.
So let me say this really plainly, in easy words, to make sure you can grasp it without ambiguity: you can make arguments against drugs without invoking spirits. You can make moral arguments without invoking spirits.
I do it quite often.
EDIT2: I am fine with people who call themselves Christians. I am not ok with Christian nationalism. I do not want the Christian faith eradicated, but I do want them to stop meddling in politics.
Which part, in particular, is nonsense? You consistently refuse to engage substantively, instead running away and offering insults.
You said Christianity is a "very reasonable religion." I have made my argument for why this is not the case. I can back it up with scriptural evidence, if you'd like.
You stated I made the case that no argument could be made against the legalization of all drugs. This could not be further from the truth. You are wrong here, plainly.
Please actually engage, substantively, with the text. If it is nonsense, quote it, dissect it, and show it to be the case.
I know you won't, and I suspect it's because you can't. Have fun baselessly insulting me yet again.
EDIT: let me break down the structure of my prior comment for you. There were 8 paragraphs in the initial section, 3 in the first edit, 1 in the second edit.
The first paragraph was me telling you that you have not demonstrated a capacity to substantively engage with people, while saying they make baseless arguments. This is what you are doing.
The next 4 paragraphs are me telling you that you have plainly misstated my argument, and made an accusation that was textually unfounded.
The next 3 paragraphs are my discussion of why Christianity is not a "very reasonable religion" and why I reject moral arguments from Yahweh.
I used the term "Sky D*ddy" (censored to spare your feelings) exactly once in this second comment, to explain that: yes, that is an accurate description of Yahweh.
The next 3 paragraphs in the edit were pretty much just insulting your social comprehension skills, and the last paragraph in the last edit was me stating that I'm fine with people who call themselves Christian but not fine with Christian nationalism.
All of my sentences were grammatically well-constructed. There is a logical through-line that connects one sentence to the next, and each paragraph to the next. I stated things without substantiating them, but there is nothing I said which I can not substantiate with evidence and sound reasoning.
It is not an example of disorganized thinking. It is not an example of poor thinking, nor of poor writing. Your condescension in telling me to get treatment is not well-taken. What you are seeing is a passionate person telling you, in no uncertain terms, that you are a bellend, along with specifically "how" and "why."
Wait: I thought LSD is schedule 1, and there are no legally-sanctioned uses of it? Did something change while I was living under a rock? (Unlike MDMA, where there were legally-sanctioned experiments recently.)