🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 on Nostr: npub1p3cyv…wf6ua No. The point of the reply was 1) To show the objective facts ...
npub1p3cyv4gl5p52039u02u7wg9t399s3maqh5t58zn8aq68nqeghwmshwf6ua (npub1p3c…f6ua)
No. The point of the reply was
1) To show the objective facts stated in the quote are the literal opposite of what actually happened.
2) Show the quote is fake both as a result of #1 and the fact that it has been exposed as such (other links in the thread).
3) that what people inferred these actual imply, with regard to Nixon’s intent makes no sense since the actions didnt occur in the first place and is a gross misrepresentation
4) That Nixon explicitly lessened the criminality of drugs didnt increase it
The above 4 points were the point of my post. The fact that that may be used, by a reasonable person, to infer the points you said may be perfectly reasonable, but was not my intent. My intent is to make sure the facts are clearly stated, what conclusions you draw from the facts is still up to you to make and debate freely. Is it fair to associate the outcomes that his policies delivered to his sponsoring them? Or, again, insufficiently nuanced?
Id need more nuance to know what policy and what outcome you mean. The outcome of his policies, for example, is that people who used to be arrested and getting very serious charges for simple possession now got simple misdemeanors. He reduced the consequences and criminality of processioning and consuming drugs. Yes he very much is to blame this reduction in criminality.
No. The point of the reply was
1) To show the objective facts stated in the quote are the literal opposite of what actually happened.
2) Show the quote is fake both as a result of #1 and the fact that it has been exposed as such (other links in the thread).
3) that what people inferred these actual imply, with regard to Nixon’s intent makes no sense since the actions didnt occur in the first place and is a gross misrepresentation
4) That Nixon explicitly lessened the criminality of drugs didnt increase it
The above 4 points were the point of my post. The fact that that may be used, by a reasonable person, to infer the points you said may be perfectly reasonable, but was not my intent. My intent is to make sure the facts are clearly stated, what conclusions you draw from the facts is still up to you to make and debate freely. Is it fair to associate the outcomes that his policies delivered to his sponsoring them? Or, again, insufficiently nuanced?
Id need more nuance to know what policy and what outcome you mean. The outcome of his policies, for example, is that people who used to be arrested and getting very serious charges for simple possession now got simple misdemeanors. He reduced the consequences and criminality of processioning and consuming drugs. Yes he very much is to blame this reduction in criminality.