It's not really about religion. It's about tribalism and sabre rattling.

One side is barbaric, another side cowardly, so their sabre rattling doesn't look very impressive, rather disgusting in both cases.

It's so funny to read this cause I've seen similar posts in conservative communities, only inverted.

THAT is how stupid America is.

Democracy as usual. The real problem is that they either vote for personalities or for policies, while it should be both - a wrong personality plainly won't deliver, a wrong policy is wrong no matter the personality.

People who were voting for him after Obama's time voted against weakness, hypocrisy, establishment, general perceived progress slowing down (in the 90-s and early 00-s there were many cool things on TV, in computer industry, in space, in art etc, while during Obama's years it was all the same, boring and corporate, and the Web among other things was enshittened in that time period).

Now the second time I guess it's as good as protest voting, and some are really just stupid.

In the end faulty security always gives edge to the stronger and more malicious side.

So if you want to protect the weak and allow people to defend themselves, you'd want such mechanisms to not be rigged for any abstract noble goal, because otherwise you are going to get fucked very practically.

Removed by mod

The interesting thing with these type of news stories is for me, that any time I look up the haircut the school banned, it’s mostly a really good looking cut.

Some schoolteachers become that to feel themselves important. Or powerful. After all, they are in charge of a whole group of little people. Almost like an army officer (I got a really indignated and hateful look from one such teacher after politely pointing out that teachers are not, in fact, similar to army officers, they do not command and do not bear power and responsibility).

That is, they come for obedience and feeling of self-importance ("I'm teaching them, I must be very smart, yeah, or at least they fear me"), and even bad wages do not make them try and find another trade.

So they just envy kids who have a differing look from other kids, especially if it's a good one. It makes them feel that those kids are less obedient.

(Sorry for that tone of disgust and contempt in my comment, Russian schools and all that.)

Nice haircut actually.

I personally just wore a messy Hagrid-like heap of hair being 14-15, some teachers didn't like it, but I didn't care. They did take offense, though.

Seems likely. I mean, reading stuff from the 90s, it seems he had his brains in order then, just with that bad habit of putting his d*ck into too many places. And cocaine may not necessarily make one that demented.

It's kinda sad. I'd really like to die before I turn into something like this, no matter how.

Well, then fine. The more coke sniffers - the fewer coke sniffers, rephrasing the joke about suicides.

What you just said, literally, is the textbook definition of a false equivalence fallacy.

No, you just have a problem trying to understand what’s said to you, fighting some imagined war in text instead. For what?

“If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there’s a leveling effect that opens the door to charlatans.”

I’m equating equal things. There hasn’t been an argument here on a level above them.

Also you are imagining a lot of what I’m saying instead of asking me when it’s unclear, I think this is deliberate but circumstances of upbringing made you think it’s not easy to notice, while it is and also discredits your argument.

But that’s all irrelevant anyways since you’re basically just regurgitating DARE propaganda that has little basis in fact.

Trying to present your opponent as a medium for some entity’s propaganda, thus attempting to diminish them as a subject of conversation, is something clearly incompatible with the image you are trying to create with that tone.

The fact is that drugs won’t cause a normally reasonable person to suddenly go on a murderous rampage.

A person who’d kill an attacker in self-defense - which is perfectly reasonable - can kill an innocent person under a drug causing hallucinations. That’s a very simple and a bit cinematographic example.

Anyway, use of alcohol does that. Of course there are accompanying circumstances, there always are, that’s not a counterargument.

Meanwhile there are millions of recreational drug users who go about their lives every day as productive members of society.

The conversation is about cocaine, so irrelevant.

You almost definitely know some personally.

IRL - no, I live in a country where harmless weed gets you a sentence similar to one for heroine. Ex-Soviet laws and all that.

Well, there was one guy, and yes, he’s normal morally, but I wouldn’t say adequate enough to entrust something important.

This is too an opinion.

You don’t seem to get that your opinion is just as good as any other, no matter how many upvotes you get (IRL that difference is nullified with a machine gun, for example). What differentiates opinions in quality is their predictive power. That’s a huge simplification of all the scientific method and Karl Popper’s criterion, that kind of stuff.

OK, maybe, in my language everything causing addiction is called narcotics. I mean, not maybe, you are right.

Well, then there’s nothing to argue about for us, but you’ll see various kinds of unofficial social discrimination of the users of such drugs through every loophole possible. Even being a person who takes medicine to not see hallucinations or not have impaired judgement is unpleasant socially. Nobody wants to live near a person who takes medicine in order to see hallucinations and get their judgement impaired to feel good. Except for other such people.

EDIT: I mean, similar to alcohol, nothing really new here.

Thank you for this opinion of yours too, I’ll consider it.

You are stating your opinion that I’m wrong and that something is a fact, thank you for sharing it, but it doesn’t become a fact any more than my opinion about facts and your opinions.

Yes, it’s a choice that you are going to possibly lose control of yourself and do various things you wouldn’t usually. If we are treating intoxication by cocaine or anything else as negligible while determining criminal responsibility for murders etc, that is, that every act under intoxication was intentional - then I’m fine with legalizing all drugs.

From some of them, yeah. Like there’s been plenty of people to come to NSDAP from German Communists, that doesn’t make NSDAP Communist.

It can be right or wrong depending on the set of criteria to compare them. Since I haven’t said anything as absolute as you did in your “A” statement, I’d say you’re the one to do fallacies here.

Drugs make your judgement impaired, so by extension they have the potential to make you do anything, including killing any amount of people.

I don’t think I choose my arguments poorly. Natural languages are fuzzy, and when you immediately start with dubious interpretations of what I wrote with a clear goal to prove that someone’s right and someone’s wrong and not reach the truth possibly by asking questions or having conditional logic in your answers, you just discredit yourself and not me.

They are not the same, but they both affect the probability of bullets being put anywhere.

I’ll formulate this differently - if a person taking drugs is legally fully responsible for everything done under their effect, then I’m all for full legalization. No excuses, like what a mental health problem would be, because taking drugs is a choice.

but you have been posting nothing but your opinions this entire time

We generally do that here, like you do now, exchange opinions, and our opinions are all we have (in a conversation anyway). It’s not a bad thing, just when an opinion discards opinions because they are not immediately sourced, and of course that opinion itself is not sourced … Seems very stupid.