Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Glad to see this is full legalization being proposed.

Decriminalization is of little use to the chronically uncool.




the chronically uncool

As in, warm-blooded animals?


> the chronically uncool.

Such as politicians? Or basically most people living in Ottawa?


Sure. I suspect there's a lot of people in Ottawa who'd enjoy the occasional joint, but don't know where to get it.

As for politicians... well, my impression is that they prefer crack.


Does smoking pot make you cool?


No, the contrapositive. Being cool helps you access the trust networks through which illegal supply flows.


I've never learned what contrapositive meant. Thank you for your casual use of it -- it inspired me to learn the concept. What a useful word!

The contrapositive in this case being: "Not being cool means you do not smoke pot", which as you explain seems like a reasonable assertion.


Not in my experience...it's just a matter of knowing where to look.

Not that I'm really interested in smoking pot any more. It's a bit too uncool and boring.


Bully for you. Not all of us are down to hang out with old hippies, just to purchase some weed. I'd rather have Amazon ship it.


With Prime Same-Day by drone!

(And more seriously, from a reputable and regulated supplier)


>> Does smoking pot make you cool?

> No, the contrapositive.

The first thing you're ever taught about the contrapositive, generally at the same time the name is taught, is that a statement is exactly equivalent to its contrapositive.


In boolean logic, when the law of the excluded middle holds. The theorem you're trying to use is manifestly inapplicable.


You're confused.

For one thing, the law of the excluded middle holds here just as it holds everywhere else. You've got two options:

- Smoking pot makes you cool.

- Smoking pot does not make you cool.

Those cover all cases.

But, the point I'm making is that you are incorrect to label "being cool helps you access pot" as "the contrapositive" of "smoking pot makes you cool". The concept of a contrapositive does not apply to "smoking pot makes you cool", because it is not a conditional statement.

If you want to cast the idea you're supporting as a conditional statement, you have "if you're not cool, you don't smoke pot". This actually has a contrapositive, "if you smoke pot, you're cool", and it is the same idea.

I don't believe that innovative misuse of specialized technical terms is actually a good idea. When the word you'd really like to use doesn't mean what you want it to mean, suck it up and use some different words.


The symbols above? They're English sentences, and they're perfectly clear in context. You're making a category error by trying to treat them as logical propositions, and it's leading you to waste your time on pedantry.


All right. Why do you choose to call "being cool gets you access to pot" the "contrapositive" of "smoking pot makes you cool"? What is the benefit of using a term from an unrelated area which means something different than what you mean? Why is it a category error for me to treat you as talking about logic when you use a term which is restricted to formal logic?


I kind of wanted to downvote you for such a dumb post, but whatever let's leave it in your post history. Breaking the law (when you disagree with it) doesn't make you cool. Being cool makes you cool.

I agree with the change in this law, as a non consumer who has tried it in the past, but let's not draw a stupid line between those who partake and those who don't.


No. Arguing about what cool is makes you cool.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: