No, my point is why complain about the little mote of corruption without first complaining about the big beam of corruption?MSimon wrote:Not none: less.It is amusing to think that some people believe the system wouldn't be corrupt but for drug laws
There is a LOT of corruption money in drugs.
But I see your point. Since we cant stamp out all corruption why stamp out any?
Reason vs. Emotion.
I'm attacking the corruption I know how to defeat.Diogenes wrote:No, my point is why complain about the little mote of corruption without first complaining about the big beam of corruption?MSimon wrote:Not none: less.It is amusing to think that some people believe the system wouldn't be corrupt but for drug laws
There is a LOT of corruption money in drugs.
But I see your point. Since we cant stamp out all corruption why stamp out any?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Your post is hilarious! And it makes a fun point! My objection is that the fight is not out there somewhere: "homo geekensis" vs "homo musclehead". It's internal to every human being: do I learn/rationalize or not.... But even that (imho) is not the problem. If it were, we wouldn't be having the problem: the nerds won long ago.chrismb wrote:However, what I would suggest is that there may be more to be added to your thesis. A conclusion, of sorts.
No. I believe the core of the issue you bring up is the "Us vs. Them" mentality. There is no them. There's only us. It's "Us vs. US". I genuinely believe there are two different kinds of people: Those who separate the world into two different types of people and those who don't. Those who do point their finger (or weapon) at the other side. Them-what's-don't desperately try to convince them-what's-do that dichotomy is a fallacy. I like to think of myself as the former. (That's right! Absorb the paradox. Love the paradox. Paradox is your friend!)
1) There was, though not for that reason.MSimon wrote:We need to do something about mothers milk which contains significant amounts of endocannabinoids. Mothers who start their kids on breast milk are poisoning them with marijuana analogs.
There ought to be a law.
2) Cannabinoids, as it turns out, are beneficial in all kinds of ways. Best not to smoke a bud for your daily allowance, though. They're not found in the same places as THC is found. They're found in the leaves and stems, not the buds. Tinctures and creams are better vectors for cannabinoids... So, it wasn't a good example.
I've recently heard that the brain produces DMT during a sleeping dream. So, one should never go to sleep or you'll become an addict to that horrible hallucinogen.
(This may be complete BS, as I've not double checked it elsewhere. It's kinda fun, though.
Absa-tooten-lutely!Betruger wrote: I submit that emotional maturity is in learning to weed out emotion when it gets in the way of your interests.
Remember to reinforce those emotional reactions that seem to work well.
Love is a great thing, man. (puff, puff, pass)
As Luke Skywalker once said, "I will not fight you".Diogenes wrote: (En guarde)
What you say about pecking order is true... To those who're still laboring under the personal zietgiest of highschool. ::razzberry::
I take your point, though: if one feels emotionally attacked, one is more likely to attack regardless of the rational point made. Rest assured, I do not consider you an "enemy". And it is highly unlikely (though possible) for you or anyone else here to "diss" me, as I am pretty confident about myself in most ways.
(Which is to say, "Bring it on, sith boy!")
Several things:Diogenes wrote: You were wrong about that, so I figured you must be wrong about everything else as well. How does that make you feel?
1) That's your opinion. I don't care. I said so earlier.
2) Makes me think you're a troll and I shouldn't feed you.
3) Grateful, actuatally. You convinced me I was wrong about the Ducks Penis. I was actually talking about the spikes at it's end --which seems to be counter productive. The whole rape aspect was one I wasn't considering. Add that to the equation and the ducks penis makes alot more sense. Which only bolsters my opinion about the logical evolution of emotions.
4) I love being convinced I'm wrong and shown where I'm wrong. See, I'm a nerd. I know, by definition of being human, that I'm always wrong. Everything I think is, by the very limitations of my genome, limited in scope. So, even if I have it exactly right on any one limited subject --which I don't believe to be possible-- the moment you broaden the matter to include other subjects, I know I will be wrong. Inaccurate. Imprecise. But how am I wrong? I don't know. I need others to help. Unfortunately, most people believe the spoon feeding their given. So I often don't get nerdly, stimulating interactions.... So, yeah... You changed my mind about the ducks penis. Thank you very much. Genuinely.
I have every right to f*ck myself up.Diogenes wrote: This is the whole problem. People [...] claiming that they have a right to f*ck themselves up!
I have no right to f*ck you up.
When the two conflict is where law is supposed to intervene.
(Too bad it's so piss-poor at it's job.)
This is where we're likely to disagree most: You have no right to keep me from my addiction! Whatever that is... Unless and until it conflicts with you doing yours. (Breathing comes to mind.)
Humans are far more complex than this.Diogenes wrote: I consider much of the diseased to be already lost. The interest here is to prevent the spread to the uninfected, and the only way to do that is to prevent a transference of the infection by keeping the uninfected away from it.
I have an addictive personality. My father, grandfather and great grandfather were all alcoholics. (Just another addiction.) And I can feel in my bones the alcoholism every time I do a shot of vodka. So why can I say, "Thanks, no more?" Because I was introduced to pot and LSD at extremely young ages: 8 and 12, respectively. I felt what they did to me and how much I needed them, realized I didn't like it and learned to say 'no, thanks'. If I hadn't been exposed at such a young and vulnerable age, I doubt I'd be sober enough right now to argue the point. In my case it was the very fact I had been exposed early that inoculated me.
I'm not advocating this is as a good idea. As a general rule, children should not be exposed to narcotics.
My point, though, is that humans are far more complex than, "Do not expose them to this disease and they will not be infected."
Cranes get hammered, for crying out loud! It's a chordate thing, at the very least! You can't protect people form themselves, and that's what you're saying needs to be done.
Sorry. Not gonna work.
Your words speak for me.Diogenes wrote: A vast accusation. It might be true, but it is a fact not yet in evidence.
...
You are arguing that people in positions of power become dictatorial and abuse their positions of power? Sure, that's pretty obvious.
Again, your words speak for me.Diogenes wrote: (depending on which source you wish to believe)
I don't have to agree with you to like you. Good thing, too.Diogenes wrote: Don Quixote to the rescue!
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
You mean THC is not a cannabinoid? Dr. Mechoulam will sure be interested in the news. You must contact him at once as this contradicts his life work. You know - the first guy to synthesize THC and also discover the CB1 receptor.They're not found in the same places as THC is found. They're found in the leaves and stems, not the buds.
Where do you go for your misinformation? Why do I ask? So I can avoid the location and its denizens.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Actually on the 'net z there are two kinds of people: those who are familiar with the subject they comment on and those who aren't.
You are going to have a rough time among this gang of engineers (I'd give you a week around here at most) if you continue to pass misinformation.
You are going to have a rough time among this gang of engineers (I'd give you a week around here at most) if you continue to pass misinformation.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Most amusing.chrismb wrote:I reckon there's three types of people: Those who can count, and those that can't.zDarby wrote: I genuinely believe there are two different kinds of people: Those who separate the world into two different types of people and those who don't.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
That whole theory was discredited about a decade ago.I have an addictive personality
But since you are familiar with the subject could you please provide a recent (within the last 3 years) on what the characteristics of the addictive personality are?
Maybe the NIDA can help. Naw. They claim addiction is caused by genetics and an environmental trigger. Lots of papers out there on that.
Keep up my man. Or people here will think you are blowing smoke.
BTW what kind of engineering do you practice?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I have a problem with the idea that if all drugs were made legal the problem will just go away. This will leave the door wide open to the creation of newer, far more addictive drugs that are deliberately made resistant to any rehabilitation technique. Alternatively, the only way to get unaddicted would be to take a very expensive treatment also made by the same company that created the new drug.
The new drugs could be designed so that accidental exposure ensures permanent addiction, or components placed in otherwise benign products innocently taken in combination create the addictive condition. It's not as if the technology to create addictive substances will stand still, and made legal you draw in the pharmaceutical/biotech industries.
The motivation to turn ordinary citizens into cash cow slaves for drug dealers just moves up the corporate ladder. If you don't believe thats how business see's the world, just take a gander at the interest rates on credit cards.
Now, I know that wanting the government to wage war against drugs could cause some people to look at me as a socialist, and drug dealers as the ultimate free enterprisers. But somehow I just don't think the future implications of legalized addictive drugs has been fully thought through, you think you've solved one problem but you end up creating something worse.
My problem with the Elephant in the room, (as I put it), is that the if you have drug dealers and intelligence officers and terrorists rubbing shoulders with each other for years, the possibility for collusion becomes unavoidable. As mentioned at Mad Cow, one retired Southern Sheriff and one active Southern Sheriff stated the believed the CIA was directly involved in the 911 attacks! That's scary!!!
The new drugs could be designed so that accidental exposure ensures permanent addiction, or components placed in otherwise benign products innocently taken in combination create the addictive condition. It's not as if the technology to create addictive substances will stand still, and made legal you draw in the pharmaceutical/biotech industries.
The motivation to turn ordinary citizens into cash cow slaves for drug dealers just moves up the corporate ladder. If you don't believe thats how business see's the world, just take a gander at the interest rates on credit cards.
Now, I know that wanting the government to wage war against drugs could cause some people to look at me as a socialist, and drug dealers as the ultimate free enterprisers. But somehow I just don't think the future implications of legalized addictive drugs has been fully thought through, you think you've solved one problem but you end up creating something worse.
My problem with the Elephant in the room, (as I put it), is that the if you have drug dealers and intelligence officers and terrorists rubbing shoulders with each other for years, the possibility for collusion becomes unavoidable. As mentioned at Mad Cow, one retired Southern Sheriff and one active Southern Sheriff stated the believed the CIA was directly involved in the 911 attacks! That's scary!!!
CHoff
The value of that is like attacking the enemies cooks instead of their soldiers.MSimon wrote:I'm attacking the corruption I know how to defeat.Diogenes wrote:No, my point is why complain about the little mote of corruption without first complaining about the big beam of corruption?MSimon wrote: Not none: less.
There is a LOT of corruption money in drugs.
But I see your point. Since we cant stamp out all corruption why stamp out any?
zDarby wrote:Your post is hilarious! And it makes a fun point! My objection is that the fight is not out there somewhere: "homo geekensis" vs "homo musclehead". It's internal to every human being: do I learn/rationalize or not.... But even that (imho) is not the problem. If it were, we wouldn't be having the problem: the nerds won long ago.chrismb wrote:However, what I would suggest is that there may be more to be added to your thesis. A conclusion, of sorts.
No. I believe the core of the issue you bring up is the "Us vs. Them" mentality. There is no them. There's only us. It's "Us vs. US". I genuinely believe there are two different kinds of people: Those who separate the world into two different types of people and those who don't. Those who do point their finger (or weapon) at the other side. Them-what's-don't desperately try to convince them-what's-do that dichotomy is a fallacy. I like to think of myself as the former. (That's right! Absorb the paradox. Love the paradox. Paradox is your friend!)
1) There was, though not for that reason.MSimon wrote:We need to do something about mothers milk which contains significant amounts of endocannabinoids. Mothers who start their kids on breast milk are poisoning them with marijuana analogs.
There ought to be a law.
2) Cannabinoids, as it turns out, are beneficial in all kinds of ways. Best not to smoke a bud for your daily allowance, though. They're not found in the same places as THC is found. They're found in the leaves and stems, not the buds. Tinctures and creams are better vectors for cannabinoids... So, it wasn't a good example.
I've recently heard that the brain produces DMT during a sleeping dream. So, one should never go to sleep or you'll become an addict to that horrible hallucinogen.
(This may be complete BS, as I've not double checked it elsewhere. It's kinda fun, though.
Whether it's true or not misses the point. The REASON drugs work is because they resemble NATURALLY occurring edocrinal secretions. They were evolved to resemble natural hormones etc. for the purpose of interfering with the biology of plant predators. Organic drugs work BECAUSE they resemble naturally occurring chemicals.
What, after high school people stop being human? Seriously, the social status pecking order is just as important in adult relationships as it is at any time during a person's life. It is an innate characteristic of humans. It is a natural instinct, not an attitude.zDarby wrote:Absa-tooten-lutely!Betruger wrote: I submit that emotional maturity is in learning to weed out emotion when it gets in the way of your interests.
Remember to reinforce those emotional reactions that seem to work well.
Love is a great thing, man. (puff, puff, pass)
As Luke Skywalker once said, "I will not fight you".Diogenes wrote: (En guarde)
What you say about pecking order is true... To those who're still laboring under the personal zietgiest of highschool. ::razzberry::
"Diss" means disrespect. It means saying or doing things which are intended to cause a loss of respect for someone, such as insults or snide comments and gestures. I think what you mean is that you will shake off attempts to disrespect you like water on a duck's back. (or penis.zDarby wrote: I take your point, though: if one feels emotionally attacked, one is more likely to attack regardless of the rational point made. Rest assured, I do not consider you an "enemy". And it is highly unlikely (though possible) for you or anyone else here to "diss" me, as I am pretty confident about myself in most ways.
(Which is to say, "Bring it on, sith boy!")
)That is the way mature people deal with it. (up to a point.)
Actually, neither is true. I thought my second message made it obvious that it was an attempt to provoke an emotional reaction out of you. Most people read and respond after they read. I expected you to respond with emotion to my original message, and therefore demonstrate my point. You didn't follow the usual methodology of read and reply, so the trick didn't work. It was worth a shot.zDarby wrote:Several things:Diogenes wrote: You were wrong about that, so I figured you must be wrong about everything else as well. How does that make you feel?
1) That's your opinion. I don't care. I said so earlier.
2) Makes me think you're a troll and I shouldn't feed you.
You still responded with some emotion, though it is subtle. Saying "I don't care" is a characteristic described in the book I suggested (the Lucifer Principle) commonly used by an entity (the book describes the behavior of animals as well as people) to feign unconcern towards a challenger that they are unsure they can beat. Suggesting I might be a troll is also a defensive mechanism, and an attempt to push me down socially, and thereby make you rise socially as the aggressor.
zDarby wrote: 3) Grateful, actuatally. You convinced me I was wrong about the Ducks Penis. I was actually talking about the spikes at it's end --which seems to be counter productive. The whole rape aspect was one I wasn't considering. Add that to the equation and the ducks penis makes alot more sense. Which only bolsters my opinion about the logical evolution of emotions.
One picks up a lot of useless information when one walks the earth long enough.
I read a study on duck penises a long time ago. Who would have thought it would ever be useful? You're welcome. zDarby wrote: 4) I love being convinced I'm wrong and shown where I'm wrong. See, I'm a nerd. I know, by definition of being human, that I'm always wrong. Everything I think is, by the very limitations of my genome, limited in scope. So, even if I have it exactly right on any one limited subject --which I don't believe to be possible-- the moment you broaden the matter to include other subjects, I know I will be wrong. Inaccurate. Imprecise. But how am I wrong? I don't know. I need others to help. Unfortunately, most people believe the spoon feeding their given. So I often don't get nerdly, stimulating interactions.... So, yeah... You changed my mind about the ducks penis. Thank you very much. Genuinely.
I don't mind being wrong. It makes me stronger. I go through life observing things, and then trying to figure out why things which I observe are so. I formulate theories to explain them, and until I get new information I work off the theories I have developed. When I am presented with a piece of information that contradicts my theory, I get rid of it (the theory
) and try to formulate a new theory that works with the new information. Call it the theory of "evolved theory." If it works for biology and machinery, it probably works for everything else! (evolution that is.) Anyway, the duck penis was easy, and a lot less controversial. If duck penises could somehow be linked to the drug war, I'm sure we would have more of an argument about them.
I *MIGHT* be able to convince you regarding my perspective on drugs and the drug war, but the issue is a lot more complicated. There are things you need to know that you may or may not know. The ability to see my side of the discussion might require a lot of new learning on your part, or you may already know it. The same may very well be true of me. I was recently convinced to modify my opinion regarding the drug war, but not by anybody on this website. Their arguments I all found non persuasive, but this one fellow billing himself as the "Worlds Only Rational Man" presented me with an argument that I have to acknowledge is persuasive.
In a nutshell, your statement is: " You have no right to stop XXXX, unless it conflicts with YYYYY. "zDarby wrote:I have every right to f*ck myself up.Diogenes wrote: This is the whole problem. People [...] claiming that they have a right to f*ck themselves up!
I have no right to f*ck you up.
When the two conflict is where law is supposed to intervene.
(Too bad it's so piss-poor at it's job.)
This is where we're likely to disagree most: You have no right to keep me from my addiction! Whatever that is... Unless and until it conflicts with you doing yours. (Breathing comes to mind.)
My argument is, "It conflicts with YYYY".
zDarby wrote:Humans are far more complex than this.Diogenes wrote: I consider much of the diseased to be already lost. The interest here is to prevent the spread to the uninfected, and the only way to do that is to prevent a transference of the infection by keeping the uninfected away from it.
I have an addictive personality. My father, grandfather and great grandfather were all alcoholics. (Just another addiction.) And I can feel in my bones the alcoholism every time I do a shot of vodka. So why can I say, "Thanks, no more?" Because I was introduced to pot and LSD at extremely young ages: 8 and 12, respectively. I felt what they did to me and how much I needed them, realized I didn't like it and learned to say 'no, thanks'. If I hadn't been exposed at such a young and vulnerable age, I doubt I'd be sober enough right now to argue the point. In my case it was the very fact I had been exposed early that inoculated me.
I'm not advocating this is as a good idea. As a general rule, children should not be exposed to narcotics.
My point, though, is that humans are far more complex than, "Do not expose them to this disease and they will not be infected."
Really? And your evidence of someone being infected with a disease they were never exposed to is?
What's not gonna work? Preventing the spread of disease through isolation? I'm not saying "protect people from themselves." That is what all the Libertarians keep trying to MAKE me say. I am saying protect INNOCENT people from those who have the disease.zDarby wrote: Cranes get hammered, for crying out loud! It's a chordate thing, at the very least! You can't protect people form themselves, and that's what you're saying needs to be done.
Sorry. Not gonna work.
Why would you think I said "protect people from themselves"? I clearly said:
And you know I clearly said it because you excerpted it from my message and QUOTED IT! Please stop trying to force my opinion to fit your narrative.I consider much of the diseased to be already lost. The interest here is to prevent the spread to the uninfected, and the only way to do that is to prevent a transference of the infection by keeping the uninfected away from it.
Since you excerpted the sentences from their context, they no longer speak for me. They are carefully arranged to appear contradictory, but that is a trick. You are taking the response I made to the specific charge that ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT IS CORRUPT, and coupling it with the General observation that People in positions of power tend to become more autocratic over time. Both are true and not contradictory because they are referring to two different things.zDarby wrote:Your words speak for me.Diogenes wrote: A vast accusation. It might be true, but it is a fact not yet in evidence.
...
You are arguing that people in positions of power become dictatorial and abuse their positions of power? Sure, that's pretty obvious.
The point being, you cannot always accept "facts" or "Stats" at face value.zDarby wrote:Again, your words speak for me.Diogenes wrote: (depending on which source you wish to believe)
zDarby wrote:I don't have to agree with you to like you. Good thing, too.Diogenes wrote: Don Quixote to the rescue!
Is it harder to like me than agree with me, or is it harder to agree with me than like me?
choff wrote:I have a problem with the idea that if all drugs were made legal the problem will just go away. This will leave the door wide open to the creation of newer, far more addictive drugs that are deliberately made resistant to any rehabilitation technique. Alternatively, the only way to get unaddicted would be to take a very expensive treatment also made by the same company that created the new drug.
The new drugs could be designed so that accidental exposure ensures permanent addiction, or components placed in otherwise benign products innocently taken in combination create the addictive condition. It's not as if the technology to create addictive substances will stand still, and made legal you draw in the pharmaceutical/biotech industries.
The motivation to turn ordinary citizens into cash cow slaves for drug dealers just moves up the corporate ladder. If you don't believe thats how business see's the world, just take a gander at the interest rates on credit cards.
Now, I know that wanting the government to wage war against drugs could cause some people to look at me as a socialist, and drug dealers as the ultimate free enterprisers. But somehow I just don't think the future implications of legalized addictive drugs has been fully thought through, you think you've solved one problem but you end up creating something worse.
My problem with the Elephant in the room, (as I put it), is that the if you have drug dealers and intelligence officers and terrorists rubbing shoulders with each other for years, the possibility for collusion becomes unavoidable. As mentioned at Mad Cow, one retired Southern Sheriff and one active Southern Sheriff stated the believed the CIA was directly involved in the 911 attacks! That's scary!!!
Very astute! And an example of something similar to that which happened in China.
This line is pay dirt!
The motivation to turn ordinary citizens into cash cow slaves for drug dealers just moves up the corporate ladder.
It begs the question. What would happen if any and all drugs were legal, and companies could compete with each other to produce the most addictive slave making substance?