Loose_Seal

Approved
  • Content count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Does DGD Sean still post here? I just moved to San Jose and jammed with someone who name dropped Sean saying they used to play music. Thought it was funny.
  2. Wouldn't faking it/being in a trance be a much much much more plausible explanation. Proving the nonexistence of something that does not exist is impossible. But what is the appropriate response? I cannot prove to you that unicorns do not exist.
  3. Regardless if his sentiments are exaggerated or representative of only a certain group of Mormons, it does not take away from how illogical and unreasonable the Mormon teachings are. It "just sounds ridiculous" to those who would rather use logic and reason to guide their lives. Perhaps his words are unfair. Perhaps you are too unwilling to admit the things you've devoted your life to are absolutely unnecessary, regressive, and crazy. A piece of poop that doesn't smell THAT bad is still a piece of poop.
  4. Yep, I understand your points. And seeing how being a part of this boreds is getting more and more embarrassing to be a part of this will probably be my last post but... I'm sure you can see the hypocrisy when comparing to the abuse of legal substances that is going on now. But I'm trying to say it doesn't work the way you make it out to be. I don't smoke cigarettes and I am over 18. I don't abuse alcohol and I am over 21. I don't abuse cough syrup and I am less than a km from the nearest pharmacy. I do abuse caffeine because I choose to do so. Do recreational/safe users have to carry the burden for abusers? Is alcohol (or any substance) to blame over its abuse? Is it not up to the person? Is there enough education to counter alcohol's over-glamorization? Is alcohol abuse being addressed effectively, logically, reasonably? Did alcohol prohibition work? Consistency is needed. Having a harmful and potentially dangerous drug (alcohol) stay legal because people are comfortable with it shouldn't be a reason for legalization. It won't necessarily mean an increase of users over the long run. Do you not smoke because marijuana is illegal? People will partake and people will not. Education is key and lacking at the moment. This picture of people flocking like sheep after legalization is a bit unfair. Better/substantial education will absolutely need to happen. But this is true for all substances we currently abuse: trans-fats, alcohol, cigarettes. It doesn't have to be available and shouldn't be available on supermarket shelves. This is an unfair picture. I do not even think proponents for legalization would go for this. It needs to be highly regulated and thus, more difficult for ignorant and naive children to partake in. Labeling drugs as evil has not and does not work. Current standards of regulation do not work effectively. I would rather see drugs highly regulated in a proper venue for a proper clientele through proper education and strict laws rather than picking and choosing substances to be labeled as evil, to be distributed on dangerous black markets, and to scare people from knowing the truth about these things. Substance abuse may be prevalent in poorer communities. What is the point? The substance abuse is a product of their poverty/lack of education. Remove the drugs, these people are still poor and uneducated. 1 The poor often abuse drugs 2 ? 3 ? :4: Conclusion? How is prohibition better? Why is hypocrisy not important because it's too hard to address? Isn't effective education and strict laws for drugs a more logical reaction?
  5. Yes, this is fine. But if you would look closely/not be so dense, I'm not just reiterating what you've been trying to say to him. I believe most, if not all drugs, should be legal and I'm trying to portray this in a logical argument rather than: "It's like coffee!" or "Do you watch South Park, shit-balls?" or "I'd love to know if you took debate in high-school or college, I bet you'd get absolutely destroyed." or "If you approached this subject without being a pompous asshole, maybe some of us would listen to you." or the best one "Just know that everyone on this board thinks you're an asshole" I agree. I share some of your points. But I'm not sure I would want to side with you as an ambassador for legalization because you get quite emotional/upset and all fallacy-y. People aren't so receptive to what you say when you don't use language maturely. So I thought I would help you out. My bad. And I DO suck with commas. It is relevant to legalization.
  6. From what I gather from Blackstar's posts: 1 Marijuana is a mind/mood-altering drug 2 Mind/mood-altering drugs can lead to questionable behavior. 3 Things that cause questionable behavior should be illegal :4: Marijuana should be illegal or A Some people will abuse drugs B Drug abuse can lead to poor decision-making :C: Drugs should be (made) illegal Is this how it goes? 1 Yep. I agree. 2 Yep. Cough syrup, caffeine, alcohol, anti-depressants, paint, etc. can lead to questionable behavior. 3 Where is the line? What things should be legal and what things should stay/become illegal? What about other legal substances that are more harmful than illegal substances? A Yep. I agree. And some people do not/will not. B Yep. I agree :C: Which ones? All of them? Why only some of them? On what basis should legalization be based (Is it consistent/logical)? Should degree of "danger" be considered? Where is the line? Should stable recreational users also carry the burden that addicts place on the issue? People abuse drugs and other unhealthy substances and will continue to do so. You do. I do. Proper regulation and education is absolutely necessary. Prohibition is hugely expensive and has not been effective. Bad people profit from illegal marijuana. Violence flows from the illegality of marijuana. Jail is expensive. I do not equate a rapist with a smoker. I do not equate a killer with a smoker. They should not be treated the same. People will abuse drugs. Some people won't. Legalization could mean less violent crime, less organized crime, less access for youth, and more tax revenue. More people will abuse it? Again, proper regulation and education is absolutely necessary. I do not abuse cough syrup/pain killers and they are readily available to me. Young people can deal with sketchy people (who ask for ID?.........................) to obtain marijuana quite easily. Wouldn't you rather have it sold in a highly regulated arena making it more difficult for the youth to purchase. More people will perform ___ high? There absolutely needs to be lines drawn and limits set. I will not pretend like I know where they should be placed, because I don't. Alcohol is similar. But just because these are difficult questions to answer does not mean we should throw out the idea of legalization. The benefits are mesmerizing enough to warrant some critical thinking, imo. How does prohibition work better? Edit: Fyre: just curious as to what you didn't like about my post? I neg repped your post because you don't call someone names when you disagree with them and want to argue with them properly: http://en.wikipedia....st_of_fallacies Fyre says "Yeah, except that's what he did the entire time on the last boreds. You shouldn't stick your nose in things. Also, learn to use commas." Smart,,,
  7. i really cannot understand how someone can choose to do nothing if they have resources available to them. I have just graduated (August) and am currently looking for work (first interview on Tuesday) and I haven't ever felt more like a piece of shit not being in school or working. This limbo is one of the most difficult things I've ever encountered. Just knowing I could regress into a waste/good-for-nothing/waste of air so easily if I do nothing to better things is pretty shocking/scary. Not earning your free time and having too much of it is not as cracked up as it sounds.
  8. Watching the Discovery Channel when the Swamp Loggers commercial comes on and that lady says "BRING ME THSUM WOOD!"
  9. what does that even mean/what makes you say that?
  10. Misty is not as hot as she should be.
  11. Nope. Never had a spiritual experience. I've had times when I'm genuinely stunned and awestruck at some beautiful things in the world. A moment of sudden revelation is not a spiritual experience to me. I think it's dismissive to say so. It takes away from the honest effort the person had to put forth. I don't think that at all. I think the exact opposite actually. I would think a religious/spiritual person would believe things to be pre-measured and ready to roll. I am saying you are nearly statistically impossible. I am nearly statistically impossible. But you are here. I am here. That's it. Belief in a spiritual element seems like unweighted speculation. Just because I can think it, or kind of think it, or kind of kind of think it, doesn't make it important. Sometimes old knowledge is old. Sometimes group think gets out of control. Your veil could just be another color than mine. But I think a more humbling/reasonable approach is to be receptive and use reason and be logical to the knowledge my neighbors have. Even you. I'm sorry I cannot offer you anything since I am not a spiritual leader.
  12. This was my point with the H&M recommendation you gave. Yep, he wants to look "fly." I was implying that the "flyness" will not come with poor material and stitching work.
  13. Any effective LEADER can organize people. Charisma and leadership shouldn't be a measure of ones credibility on whether they should advise you how to live your life. You bring up fallacy. I have no reason to believe I am here for any particular reason. It seems like needless speculation. I could ask "What if" questions all my life. It doesn't mean there is any substance to my speculation. I know I am statistically fortunate to be in the situation I am in so I should try and live well with my neighbors. I know my neighbors have other experiences that are much different from mine. I know they have knowledge I do not have. I know I should listen, reason, and react if I want to learn. It is logical.
  14. Anyone/Everyone. Following someone because of their status, authority, lineage, charisma, popularity is quite illogical. I take the Dalai Llama, the Pope, my neighbor, my mom, the cashier at the supermarket as the same in terms of offering me life lessons. If it is reasonable, logical, good I can/should accept it. It's not very humbling to say someone is meaningless/irrelevant because they are not popular. Even the seemingly most evil people can be a source of true/good/meaningful lessons. If someone cannot see that, I think they are undeserving/too dense to be aware of it.