On the recurrence of discussions

[six to the quixotic]

There's not enough True Blood talk on this forum. Everything else you people talk about is stupid and pointless. I demand more SNookie.

[M. Nigel Salt]

I don't see why we can't each pick a subforum and stick to it. All this mingling and posting in other people's threads is disrespectful. One subforum, one poster, one post per thread. THAT'S IT.

[M. Nigel Salt]

There's not enough True Blood talk on this forum. Everything else you people talk about is stupid and pointless. I demand more SNookie.

Snookie is a vampire??? 

[six to the quixotic]

 

[M. Nigel Salt]

 

[stelz]

Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...

You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Nope, never said that.

If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser.

Often, thinking someone is lesser means one doesn't even consider their points, and just goes HAHA AS IF I WOULD SPEND THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOURE CLEARLY AN EVIL IDIOT. It doesn't always mean that, but when it does, that's what I'm talking about.

No, I'm not condoning being silent about your judgments of someone.

If you actually want to communicate back and forth and hear each other's ideas, the ignoring and shit-flinging isn't practical.

If you don't give a fuck about having an actual communicative discussion, then go right ahead.

How many years of treating someone as an equal in your communication before you think it's fair to come to the judgement that they are intelligent but indulging in willful ignorance and therefore not deserving of the respect you have been affording them?

Is that relevant?

How many years should you hold your bladder before pissing in the bath? Whoever happens to be in the bath at the same time has to cop the consequences even if you feel your long term tolerance had been justifiably exhausted.

I might remind you that you snarled at me and said I was 'blowing my own ass-trumpet' when I mentioned that a study suggesting closing marijuana shops increased crime sounded suss. That particular study was then retracted; what did the insult, the snark etc add to our ability to have that conversation?

Going after the person, not the argument sets the tone. And knowing the history of the argument makes that more effective. I'm 100% with Nyx on this one.

Really as I've followed the drugs threads there's two views.

Prohibition has issues and these issues would be made smaller by ending it.

Or

Prohibition has issues but the cost of removing it as a means to remove these issues do more harm than good (chiefly by normalizing the culture of marijuana and providing an easier and more appealing gateway into potential drug abuse.)

Instead it kind of feels like we go from 'rhwn is a braindead govt lackey', to 'lol imma troll you now' and then calling eachother idiots.

You clearly haven't read the history of my arguments with RWHN as I only have recently started personally insulting him. He has lost my respect as someone who thinks for himself and demonstrates a complete lack of intellectual honesty in favor of an insulting array of fallacies.

That you're still butthurt about a "blowing your own ass-trumpet" comment suggests you need to stop taking yourself so seriously, and perhaps wear a helmet.

Sometimes, going after the person is justified, especially when they have shown themselves to be dogmatic true believers who will stoop to any sheisty rhetorical trick in a misguided belief that ends justify the means if it's for the children.

And your dichotomizing of the drug threads shows you haven't followed many of them very carefully. One of the more important arguments you're missing is the harm that prohibition actually does: costing people their livelihood, costing taxpayers a huge amount of money, seizing people's homes, letting people rot in a corrupt prison system that profits off of their incarceration, disproportionately disenfranchising the poor and minorities, making it okay for the government to have invasive control of your body and personal space—and all of these things harm children more than the drug itself.

Besides what prohibition is doing in general, RWHN is OKAY with schools being a police state if it means ONE KID gets caught with a bud or something and ends up having to do a program. If we have a PROBLEM with our kids being jailed for tardies and assorted other bullshit, he says we should GO TALK TO THE SCHOOL BOARD AND IT'LL BE ALL BETTER. Like nobody ever raised hell when their kids were being abused.

There's nothing there to respect, he sold his soul for a paycheck a long time ago. RWHN can eat a bag of dicks.

Oh, and the Nixon thing was SUBLIME. 

[Net]

Net, I've been called worse and I'm not phased. I'm just saying, it clearly isn't true that you are withholding judgement with great patience and only giving in at the final moment.

I guess this is the thing again though- everyone likes the way they post because they like it, and I don't remember the last time anyone's request to maintain an intellectual respectful atmosphere was met with anythig but rationalizations of why actually everything theyve ever posted was as it should have been. I'm starting to feel snippy about it so I'll eject from the whole topic now.

If you'd bothered to actually look at my discussions with RWHN in recent years you'd know you're making a false inference based solely on my recent behavior.

I don't claim to be a paragon of perfect rationality and even in this very thread that you're reading right now I have owned my misinterpretation. That's the best I can do—check myself and hope people will point out where I'm wrong, even rudely, and own it.

[stelz]

I don't see why we can't each pick a subforum and stick to it. All this mingling and posting in other people's threads is disrespectful. One subforum, one poster, one post per thread. THAT'S IT.

FUCKIN A. NO SHIT SLINGING. PROBLEM SOLVED. 

[P3nT4gR4m]

Here's my over-simplistic, all encopassing theory of why threads like drugs and anarchy and hosries and shit always devolve into an asshole convention.

It's because, once you've been around the block a few times, you totally are aware of a myriad arguments for and a myriad arguments against. This doesn't sway your opinion, it makes it concrete and, conversely, it makes the other one more and more retarded. Each time the anti-pot lobby comes up with another dumb fucking reason to associate puffing herb with the deth sentance! Each time another stupid variation on "why can't we all just get on and love each other, without the need for police and money and shit" rears it's head, my opinion on these matters is reinforced. This is probably the same for the retards with the dumb counter-opinions.

See how it works yet?

The more someone argues a position that you have already decided is retarded, the chance of swaying your opinion actually decreases in direct proportion to the respect you have for the numbnuts who's arguing it. I like RWHN, a lot. But I can't get behind his opinion on teh herb. That should be all there is to it but, unfortunately, the arguments keep cycling around and, every time, I see his position as more and more ridiculous.

I don't think he's evil or anything because of it. I just put it down to - smart people sometimes believe dumb shit. I'm sure I could argue with him some more about this but it aint my fucking business to change his mind, just like it aint his business to change mine. As long as we're accepting this last thing then there aint no problem. Next time mary jane gets mentioned (unless I can think of some really pithy one-liner) I'll keep my peace.

[LMNO, PhD (life continues)]

What the hell, I'll take a stab at this.

This is what I can see regarding RWHN's stance:

1) If an adult wants to fuck themselves up on drugs, go right ahead.

2) Some studies have shown that a child's brain is still developing even as old as a late teen.
           2a) Some of those studies have shown that the decision-making areas in a child's brain are not fully formed as a teenager.
           2b) Some other studies have shown that drugs can alter/stunt a child's brain more profoundly than an adult's.

3) Something should be done to prevent children from fucking up their brains.

I personally agree with all of the above.

Of course, any proposed solutions have to take place in the real world; and he's looked at a lot of studies (perhaps not all, but quite a lot); and he's gone into schools to observe; and he's gone to the state house; and he's seen the bureaucracy at work, the police in action, and the statistics on the ground.  And he's decided on a course of action. 

Perhaps it's not optimal.  Perhaps it's ineffectual.  It certainly isn't widely agreed with around here.  But I know one thing for sure, in my years of interacting with him on this board... he's not dumb.  He's used his brain, and he's weighed options.  He knows about Maybe Logic, he knows the "in some sense" mantra.  He knows about BIP and wearing blinders.  He knows about the menu and the meal, the map and the territory.

He's agreed that kids shouldn't get criminal records.  He's agreed that education and counseling and social improvements to communities will reduce the usage rate more than criminal punishment.  He's also taken a few stances that seem... draconian, at least to me (and apparently, many of you).  And yeah, I disagree with him at times.  But to call him a shill, a shitneck, an asshole, a fraud, or a brainwashing fascist seems a bit much. 

He looked at the situation, thought it over, and has made a choice.  The fact that he continues to post here, even when some threads turn into one person vs the entire board (and can often get kind of ugly), speaks volumes to me about what kind of person he is.

Anyway, just thought I'd put that out there.  I don't agree with his methods, but I think I agree with much of his core principles.

[Misery's Feed Trough]

Thanks LMNO and thanks (I think) Pent.

[El Twid]

Im a good joe because im like... Mellow and stuff man. You know? Like if i feel like im going to like... Lose my cool man, i just take a deep breath hold it... :cough cough: and then i feel alright. And like... Maybe a little hungry you know man? And then i wonder who ate all the ice cream.

[stelz]

Im a good joe because im like... Mellow and stuff man. You know? Like if i feel like im going to like... Lose my cool man, i just take a deep breath hold it... :cough cough: and then i feel alright. And like... Maybe a little hungry you know man? And then i wonder who ate all the ice cream.

It's like yogic brea- what were we talking about?

[El Twid]

[The Good Reverend Roger]

  The fact that he continues to post here, even when some threads turn into one person vs the entire board (and can often get kind of ugly), speaks volumes to me about what kind of person he is.

The fact that he treats anyone who disagrees with him as a slave to peer pressure tells me what kind of person he is.