alt Hacker NewsA flawed argument doesn’t mean the position is incorrect, only that the person making the argument failed.
> So you agree that hard drugs are poison (or even worse than poison, about 75K vs about 100K deaths / year).
Read my first post. I never said hard drugs were good for you, just that being poison alone does not inherently warrant anything past a warning label. And again that 100k number you want to use isn’t limited to hard drugs.
>A flawed argument doesn’t mean the position is incorrect, only that the person making the argument failed.
But let's skip the generic/philosophical pedantry and stick to the discussion at hand? I mean, I already argued against the position, which implies I consider it incorrect. So a failed argument doesn't do anything to convince me, on the contrary...
>I never said hard drugs were good for you, just that being poison alone does not inherently warrant anything past a warning label.
Inherently maybe no. Practically? Given the outcomes we want to see practically, and also from the moral standpoint of what's "good" i.g. regarding things a society should encourage vs discourage?
> And again that 100k number you want to use isn’t limited to hard drugs.
It includes what else, weed overdoses?