[flagged]

Then, this is a good opportunity to learn more about good arguments. The supposed "refutation" amounted to "the person that wrote a tabloid biography is credible because I say he is. There, now that I have proven his credibility ..." I mean, you can't actually be serious.

Oh, save your weeping for my "social comprehension skills" are fine. I saw it less as hyperbole and more of pedestrian inability to make a real case and instead malign a pretty reasonable religion. This is a website often known for being pedantic about correctness and you're incredulity at see someone not accepting passive aggressive nonsense as a valid argument seems to say more about your social comprehension skills, to be perfectly honest.

The fact that you repeatedly write "Sky Daddy" as some child on 4chan seems to also imply that you may not be aware of what kind of a site this is. I don't know. Even the meat of your argument is plainly pathetic and I meant that with no disrespect. The idea that no one can possibly make a credible argument against complete legalization of drugs, which is not to say such an argument would be correct, is sophomoric to the point that I think it may be a topic better left to adults.

> Jerry Oppenheimer is generally considered to be a credible biographer and journalist.

> That takes care of the charge of "leftist piddle, conspiracy theory, and unsubstantiated allegations."

[Citation Needed]

You're idea of what constitutes a refutation is, and I mean this as nicely as possible, pretty ridiculous.

Is this really for HN? This is leftist piffle, conspiracy theory, and unsubstantiated allegations. I’m not sure what it adds to the discovery by this undergrad. I don’t know.