> I’ve never seen anyone change his mind because of the power of a superior argument or the acquisition of new facts.

I feel bad for Scott Adams as it would appear he's never taken part in a conversation which has been based on the assumption of good intentions on both sides. But, having read what Scott Adams writes, and his obsession with utilitarianism and zero sum games, that shouldn't be too surprising.

Haven't met me then :-)

I've changed my views on drug policies thanks to discussing it - mostly politely IIRC - here on HN.

You assumed a lot about the parent poster that simply wasn’t there. I’m sorry you were drugged against your will. However, that doesn’t justify criminalizing those who use various drugs themselves, without desire to harm others. You say “people who are using drugs for their benefit” and then proceed to equate that only to several predatory behaviors. What about the personal benefits that many cannabis smokers enjoy, at no risk to others? Should they be shamed out of those benefits?

Complete non-sequitur, this is akin to arguing that people should be shamed for being okay with sex because rape exists.

I think you are replying to something I didn't write (i.e. extrapolating).

Sorry if I unintentionally triggered something.

Indeed, people don't want to see their behavior being mocked in a Dilbert cartoon or do things considered Dilbert-esque. Which has basically become part of our collective consciousness.

The impact that cartoon has had on management/office behavior would be hard to overstate, I suspect.

I'm not sure about the management part.

Lot's of people identify with Dilbert [1], nobody with the PHB.

[1] less these days, I suspect, as Adams has undermined his universality