Marijuana [should / should not] be illegal

neovulcan · 2022-05-24T19:57:40+00:00

That's a fair "should". What's the "should not"?

neovulcan · 2022-05-24T19:56:53+00:00

That sounds like an argument for "bad". What's the argument for "good"?

Rastafoo · 2022-05-23T18:02:03+00:00

Marijuana should not be legal because its linked to lower IQ, damages the development of people under the age of 25, and spreads through the air unlike alcohol. Although marijuana does not contain nicotine, it still has all the other problems of regular cigarettes including bronchitis and other health issues. To be frank, both marijuana and cigarettes should be criminalized because they have strong negative effects on society around you.

Rastafoo · 2022-05-23T17:59:03+00:00

In practical terms stocks are significantly more difficult and expensive to purchase than crypto. The latter is more often used by young people, who are already getting a third of their income taken on average with social security, medicare, income tax, state tax, etc. So I say, leave young people alone.

Brewdabier · 2022-05-09T22:25:00+00:00

We should all know social media will influence people into believing anything, social engineering has been used for 100's of years. I could pay say 20 people to go on twitter, FB and brag how I turn lead into gold and people will fall for the scam. The one problem with social media is who do you sue reddit, twitter, FB owner is not in control of enforcing rules and mods pick and choose so the owner has no worries..

neovulcan · 2022-05-09T16:47:49+00:00

No: Every place that tries true free speech eventually finds the limits of what people will tolerate. 4chan is a great example. Users will lose faith in the system not for the lack of quality content, but for the ratio of quality to garbage. How much time sifting through garbage will people stand before finding good? Again, see 4chan.

Yes: "Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech; which is the right of every man as far as by it he does not hurt or control the right of another; and this is the only check it ought to suffer and the only bounds it ought to know.... Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech, a thing terrible to traitors. Benjamin Franklin" Twitter enjoys the protections of being a public forum and should be treated as such YouTube . Additionally, Twitter went too far in censoring political opponents, which sends the subtle message that the censored argument was so good, no counterargument could be made. Without naming names (which I'm sure will trigger some bot), I've reviewed many of the censored and find their arguments were neither so good as to have no counterargument, nor so bad that censorship would be necessary. Circling back to Ben Franklin: "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech".

neovulcan · 2022-05-09T15:23:39+00:00

Climate alarmist: Google "climate change since 1900" and you'll find plenty of articles and studies based on the same dataset. If you follow the scientific method using this dataset, you're forced to draw alarming conclusions. Additionally, even if these conclusions are wrong, steps towards a greener Earth hurt no one, and provide varying benefits to everyone. Google "aqi map usa" for a taste of the subtle irritants we tolerate in many regions. It feeds our collective ego to believe we make a difference, and its good for society to see people looking to take responsibility.

Climate skeptic: Google "climate change since the beginning of time" and you'll find datasets that show us entering and exiting multiple ice ages without human intervention. If human intervention didn't pull us out of the previous ice ages, now probably has nothing to do with us as well. We still aren't as warm as the Roman period, and the climate alarmists need to show how a smaller population with no fossil fuels managed to have a larger impact on world climate. The planet is fine. Head on over to /r/climateskeptics for more.

A lot of climate alarmists are researchers or businesses that would not be profitable without climate alarmists in social media. This is generally the crowd of "science", so the "climate change deniers" are usually religious fundamentalists that don't trust science. This leads to the former group disregarding the ice core datasets because it conflicts with their politics, and the latter disregarding it because it conflicts with their religion. You'll find so many arguments low on the argument pyramid

neovulcan · 2022-05-09T15:03:56+00:00

In a work setting that makes sense. I'm referring to places like 4chan, as I just don't bother with it anymore. Most people aren't tasked with going to Twitter...

Brewdabier · 2022-05-09T14:55:26+00:00

Every place that tries true free speech eventually finds the limits of what people will tolerate.

A study was don long ago where a group of people were given positive feedback for a task then a week later given negative feedback for the exact task. Basically people will tolerate what there told to tolerate.

neovulcan · 2022-05-09T13:21:44+00:00

Inspired by this response (not mine) to the question "Who is based stick man?"

Here's two answers I can come up with. In keeping with the time-honored internet tradition of only reading things that conform to our established world view, please read either Paragraph A (if you voted Democrat) or Paragraph B (if you voted Republican). Please do not attempt to seek out and understand the point of view of anyone you may disagree with.

Paragraph A: Kyle Chapman is a far-right Trump supporter who attended the March Berkley "March for Trump" protest ready for a fight. He came dressed in riot gear, including helmet, goggles, a homemade wooden shield, and a homemade baseball bat. When violence erupted at the Pro-Trump rally, he eagerly joined in. He was rightly arrested for attacking anti-trump protesters and is now being heralded as a hero by the racist alt-right. They describe him as "based stick man" and "The Alt-Knight".

Paragraph B: Kyle Chapman, aka "based stick man" is a Trump supporter who attended the March Berkley "March for Trump". Because of many recent attacks by so called "anti-fascist" left wing extremists, Chapman came dressed in protective clothing, including a plywood shield and wooden stick to protect himself and others against radical leftist violence. When the "anti-fascist" anarchists started attacking innocent people, Chapman used his stick to defend his fellow Trump supporters. In the video, you can see the radical leftists attacking innocent protesters- attacking people on the ground, grabbing peaceful people to pull them into the crowd of "anti-fascist" thugs, and spraying innocent people with pepper spray. Chapman was unjustly singled out by police for defending himself and other innocent people. He is currently free, but is awaiting for trial.

Here's the most impartial video I could find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKN7XDs2E58

neovulcan · 2022-05-09T13:14:04+00:00

Friendly reminder that top level comments in this sub are supposed to present both sides. I'm not removing this, though, as you've at least got one side down, and this sub is brand new.

jet199 · 2022-05-09T10:06:51+00:00

Yes.

Reason number one, some are actually shit and your will have crap teachers, you won't learn what you need to and come out not good for anything.

Reason number two, we live in a global economy and most companies will have foreign bosses somewhere up the hierarchy and they will only know of the very top universities in your country. Anything else on your CV and they won't be interested.

Reason number three, networking. Most people rise up in their careers partly because of who they know. If you look at people successful in your chosen career they have all generally been to the same small number of colleges. You should probably try to go to the same ones.

neovulcan · 2022-05-09T05:08:09+00:00

Pro-choice: as you've stated, the pro-choice side doesn't consider the unborn to be life, and I think it's probably a lot more than that. I think pro-choice is rooted in the brutal animalistic caveman side, where the average life expectancy was 25, not because many died around 25, but because it's a statistical average, with so many dying young. I think, if you really dig into the pro-choice movement, they wouldn't really care about a death until adult years, probably somewhere in the teens. Children to support when you're struggling? Children who might never pull their own weight due to genetic deficiencies? When your family is barely scraping by, this is the pragmatic mindset that survives caveman years, and is arguably viable in the worst parts of the world today.

Pro-life: the worst parts of the world today aren't anywhere this discussion is being held. Hell, if you own a flushy toilet, you're living at a higher standard of living than medieval kings. When you look at who to respect in a society, and thereby infer a society's values, do you not instantly respect those who would add years to a person they don't know? Consider a random person collapsing on the street - do you respect the bystander filming for internet karma or the random stranger attempting CPR? Which, btw, has an incredibly low success rate, which makes it an even more noble attempt in my eyes. If you could add years to a stranger's life for a statistically minor inconvenience in your life, could you see the value in that act of compassion? Imagine that stranger shares 50% of your DNA, and would learn from your example. Regardless of where you are on the nature/nurture spectrum, the odds of creating a force for good are overwhelmingly in your favor, even for victims of rape. Consider Dr. Ron Paul who has delivered over 4000 babies and never found need for an abortion. It's almost never medically necessary, it's grotesque, and it fundamentally defines whether we are a self-centered or self-less society. Furthermore, on recent events, SCOTUS should release the draft either as is or in a more strengthened form, as this issue is clearly not so one-sided as to override the 10th amendment.

neovulcan · 2022-05-09T03:57:19+00:00

On the political side: leadership doesn't change hands, similar to how the Nazis grabbed power in the 20s and didn't need to let go. This was completely legal, as that's how previous regimes had taken power, and I suspect what's happened in Russia is also completely legal.

On the economic side: we've seen Russia's GDP decline since 1970 and I've got to wonder if they were to the "zero fucks point" before 2014, much like the Germans in the 1930s following the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles.

neovulcan · 2022-05-09T03:55:48+00:00

Bad: Every place that tries true free speech eventually finds the limits of what people will tolerate. 4chan is a great example. Additionally, open algorithms, as Musk intends, will allow those who craft spam bots to consistently evade the system. Users will lose faith in the system not for the lack of quality content, but for the ratio of quality to garbage. How much time sifting through garbage will people stand before finding good? Again, see 4chan.

Good: "Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech; which is the right of every man as far as by it he does not hurt or control the right of another; and this is the only check it ought to suffer and the only bounds it ought to know.... Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech, a thing terrible to traitors. Benjamin Franklin" Twitter enjoys the protections of being a public forum and should be treated as such. Additionally, Twitter went too far in censoring political opponents, which sends the subtle message that the censored argument was so good, no counterargument could be made. Without naming names (which I'm sure will trigger some bot), I've reviewed many of the censored and find their arguments were neither so good as to have no counterargument, nor so bad that censorship would be necessary. Circling back to Ben Franklin: "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech".

neovulcan · 2022-05-09T03:54:44+00:00

Yes: The value of college is largely in separating yourself from the rest of society. For graduates of 1970ish and before, graduating alone was enough to separate yourself from "the lower class". Modern day, that distinction only belongs to a handful of institutions, as the push to subsidize student loans has significantly decreased the value of college graduation. If you don't graduate from an institution that places graduates in the elite positions, you might as well not go to college.

No: College is a crutch that too many accept. There are washouts from Ivy League schools and there are winners with no college whatsoever. Attitude is what's most critical, and a college education in the modern environment might suppress that, given the gatekeeping standards of certain institutions. Don't accept admission to a college you don't believe in, regardless of what your parents think. Trade school, the military, or carving your own path are much more viable options than mediocrity in college.

neovulcan · 2022-05-09T03:54:07+00:00

For tax: in theory, we tax the things we don't want people to do. (Don't get me started on income and corporate tax). Is the thing we don't want people to do "hide from tax in cryptocurrency" or "hide from inflation in cryptocurrency"? For the powers that seek to impose a tax, the answer is probably both, as they benefit from tax directly, and those that craft inflation get to pick the winners while the rest suffer. Additionally, this crowd will also attract those who believe all things should be taxed, as a strong government provides the things they care about most. This crowd will further expand to those who worry about the next rash of cyber attacks wiping out entire families who essentially abandoned their bank in favor of crypto. When you consider that standard cybersecurity practice is "when not if", allowing a proliferation of cryptocurrency might lead to a lack of faith in the internet altogether, which has cascading effects. Chasing out crypto investors with an excessive tax might be the way to save the internet.

Against tax: this crowd starts with those opposed to all taxes, as the government either does not provide the things they care about, or does so inefficiently as to be wasteful. In addition to the simple principle of avoiding tax, this crowd might expand a bit in the middle class, as it seems only the middle class actually pays taxes. The rich have lawyers to find loopholes, and the poor have government to find loopholes. Taxing the middle class keeps the classes separate, as the middle class never attains enough wealth to do too much more than survive. This crowd should expand further to include those disappointed with excessive inflation. Zero inflation benefits the rich, as they can postpone purchases until the price is to their liking, but the poor and middle class don't have enough savings to see a benefit. High inflation only benefits those in power, as they're funneling it to their pet projects in a rush to claim success. Low inflation seems to be the key, as the rich get progressively less return waiting for the perfect investment, but the poor still have purchasing power with a strong currency. Due to mathematical limits in Bitcoin, this inflation is nearly locked at a low rate, one which might be ideal for society.

ExplainBothSides

MODERATORS