[throwaway19972]

This response reads to me as, at best, a bad faith intepretation of hyperbole.

It seems very obvious why someone could get worked up over demonizing a relatively benign psychedelic over literal poison that is responsible for myriad health issues and daily violence.

If you can't meet in the middle and actually discuss the substance of the topic rather than nitpicking their comment, why comment at all?

[watwut]

It is not bad interpretation, it is accurate interpretation. Hyperbole is valid thing if you are not trying to use to to sneak in false facts.

In this case, it was attempt to sneak in lies.

[throwaway19972]

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]

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

[throwaway19972]

> 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-exe...

[The_Colonel]

> 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?

[namaria]

Why are you getting bent out of shape defending a death penalty for owning about enough weed to get a frat house hyped on bob marley? How is that not horrible?

[watwut]

Why are you responding to imaginary comments? If you want to make that argument, make that argument in the first place.