I'll just leave this here....

[The Rev]

Once in a while you guys amaze me.

You are astounded that our government would do something like this?

Like deliberately infecting poor black people with syphilis?
Like telling soldiers that dirt would protect them from radiation poisoning?
Well, the list is endless, but you get the idea.

Cynicism isn't a substitute for actual knowledge.

Yeah, I totally said it was, right?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

  Nobody is "out to get you", RWHN. Some of us just think you're wrong and that your arguments in this arena show a dismaying lack of consistency, eloquence, or credibility. Is that really so hard to believe?

[Cain]

Once in a while you guys amaze me.

You are astounded that our government would do something like this?

Like deliberately infecting poor black people with syphilis?
Like telling soldiers that dirt would protect them from radiation poisoning?
Well, the list is endless, but you get the idea.

Cynicism isn't a substitute for actual knowledge.

Yeah, I totally said it was, right?

You might as well have.   "US did w, x and y bad things, and you guys are surprised it also does z bad thing as well?  Wow, you guys are really gullible."

It's not, and never has been, a matter of being surprised.  It's a matter of having evidence.  You can suspect the US of doing all sorts of nasty things based on past expectations, but sneering at everyone else for being outraged when they actually find proof of it is nothing but pure cynicism masquerading as knowledge.  It's signalling "I am superior, because I expected this, and you did not".  But those expectations were not based on specific knowledge of the wrongdoing in question, only of previous instances.

Sorry.  I guess the next time you decide to post about the US doing something you don't like, I'll show up with some belittling comment for all those involved in the conversation, and see how that goes down.

[The Rev]

Once in a while you guys amaze me.

You are astounded that our government would do something like this?

Like deliberately infecting poor black people with syphilis?
Like telling soldiers that dirt would protect them from radiation poisoning?
Well, the list is endless, but you get the idea.

Cynicism isn't a substitute for actual knowledge.

Yeah, I totally said it was, right?

You might as well have.   "US did w, x and y bad things, and you guys are surprised it also does z bad thing as well?  Wow, you guys are really gullible."

It's not, and never has been, a matter of being surprised.  It's a matter of having evidence.  You can suspect the US of doing all sorts of nasty things based on past expectations, but sneering at everyone else for being outraged when they actually find proof of it is nothing but pure cynicism masquerading as knowledge.  It's signalling "I am superior, because I expected this, and you did not".  But those expectations were not based on specific knowledge of the wrongdoing in question, only of previous instances.

Sorry.  I guess the next time you decide to post about the US doing something you don't like, I'll show up with some belittling comment for all those involved in the conversation, and see how that goes down.

Sure, go ahead.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Leaving this thread now.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Wait.  Fuck, no, I'm not.

A few things:

1.  RWHN:  Disagreeing with you is NOT "being out to get you".  Trust me on this, I have some experience in the paranoia department.  Being against drug abuse does not mean you have to support or defend every shitty thing done in the name of prevention.  That's the same mindset you see over at Capitol Grilling when the two sides line up to defend all manner of odious shit because "their side" did it.

2.  Charley:  Yeah, I expect shitty things from my government and their masters.  That's realism.  However, I reserve the fucking right to rage the fuck out when I find they've done something fucking horrible.  There's two kinds of complacency, and one of them involves just sitting back quietly when the fat bastards stick it to us again.  I am not ashamed to get pissed off about it, and if that means I'm "gullible" and insufficiently worldly-wise, then fuck me, I must still have a little moral outrage left in me.  Just kill me now or kill me.

3.  There is precisely ZERO FUCKING REASON to spike painkillers with atropine to "prevent abuse", especially when THEY DON'T TELL YOU THAT THEY FUCKING DID IT.  This is the same sort of shit intel organizations do routinely:  Fuck with people JUST BECAUSE THEY FUCKING CAN.  These people should be fed into a goddamn chipper feet first. 

Pissed?  Yeah, I'm fucking pissed.  If you AREN'T pissed, you're either blinded by ideology, or you've lost your sense of moral outrage entirely, which IS JUST ONE MORE FUCKING WAY THE MACHINE BEATS YOU DOWN.

What the hell kind of country puts up with this bullshit?  Are there any SPINES left in America at all? 

Get the fuck off my planet.  All of you.

[The Rev]

Wait.  Fuck, no, I'm not.

A few things:

1.  RWHN:  Disagreeing with you is NOT "being out to get you".  Trust me on this, I have some experience in the paranoia department.  Being against drug abuse does not mean you have to support or defend every shitty thing done in the name of prevention.  That's the same mindset you see over at Capitol Grilling when the two sides line up to defend all manner of odious shit because "their side" did it.

2.  Charley:  Yeah, I expect shitty things from my government and their masters.  That's realism.  However, I reserve the fucking right to rage the fuck out when I find they've done something fucking horrible.  There's two kinds of complacency, and one of them involves just sitting back quietly when the fat bastards stick it to us again.  I am not ashamed to get pissed off about it, and if that means I'm "gullible" and insufficiently worldly-wise, then fuck me, I must still have a little moral outrage left in me.  Just kill me now or kill me.

3.  There is precisely ZERO FUCKING REASON to spike painkillers with atropine to "prevent abuse", especially when THEY DON'T TELL YOU THAT THEY FUCKING DID IT.  This is the same sort of shit intel organizations do routinely:  Fuck with people JUST BECAUSE THEY FUCKING CAN.  These people should be fed into a goddamn chipper feet first. 

Pissed?  Yeah, I'm fucking pissed.  If you AREN'T pissed, you're either blinded by ideology, or you've lost your sense of moral outrage entirely, which IS JUST ONE MORE FUCKING WAY THE MACHINE BEATS YOU DOWN.

What the hell kind of country puts up with this bullshit?  Are there any SPINES left in America at all? 

Get the fuck off my planet.  All of you.

*sigh*

Roger, I never said anything of the sort. Personally I found the conversation interesting as hell since Terri and I both take hydrocodone on a regular basis. Outrage=/= surprise.

It was a comment that passed through my head and fell out my fingers, but this is the last time I will offer clarification on any of my comments. Misread them all and be damned as far as I am concerned.

[AFK]

1) You've given no indication that you make a distinction between how you approach the subject here and how you approach it in a professional setting.

You have to be told that?   

2) Ah yes, we're back to this. Some people vehemently disagree with your position on a certain subject and are willing to have (and expecting in return) a reasoned an eloquent debate on the matter. Since you seem unwilling or unable to provide that from your side of the argument, we must be "out to get you".

Wait, so, you have been reasoned and eloquent?  And please do not mistake my critique of your approach to this debate as me taking your tact personally.  I'm simply making observations as to what you and Nigel seem to be attempting to accomplish, instead of having an actual reasoned and eloquent debate.  I can assure you I am quite comfortable with my status and standing in my field. 

PROTIP: There's only one person ITT who is discrediting you. It's you.

Well, no, I've not been discredited by anyone so far. 

[AFK]

Nobody is "out to get you", RWHN. Some of us just think you're wrong and that your arguments in this arena show a dismaying lack of consistency, eloquence, or credibility. Is that really so hard to believe?

Do you and ECH PM each other before you post in this thread?  Or is "eloquence" the secret PD.COM forum "word of the day"?

My consistency is fine.  The problem with these debates is the different knowledge bases.  It's pretty clear that my knowledge base is a bit different than some on the other side, and so it doesn't really matter what I say, it's always going to be viewed as "wrong".  This gets into that "knows just enough to be dangerous" idea. 

[AFK]

1.  RWHN:  Disagreeing with you is NOT "being out to get you".  Trust me on this, I have some experience in the paranoia department.  Being against drug abuse does not mean you have to support or defend every shitty thing done in the name of prevention.  That's the same mindset you see over at Capitol Grilling when the two sides line up to defend all manner of odious shit because "their side" did it.

Again, with the "out to get you" meme.  I didn't say anyone was "out to get me", I was simply observing a pattern in posting.  That pattern being disagreeing with my position, and then tacking on some kind of statement along the lines of "oh woe the children that RWHN is trying to help."  In other words, "I disagree with you, and, you must be pretty awful at what you do."

But again, I reitirate, one should not take this observation as me taking that personally.  I can assure everyone that I do not.  I'm very comfortable with my performance in my profession.  I kinda figure when I am appointed to significant positions, get invited to exclusive summits, and receive "atta boys" from the state and federal level, I must be doing okay.  I'm not going to lose sleep at night because a couple of people on the internet think I'm wrong. 

And I honestly disagree with your and the assessment of others when it comes to other ingredients in prescription drugs.  You all seem to be assuming nefarious intent.  A focused intent to make drug abusers gravely ill.  Any prescription drug when taken in too high amounts can make someone gravely ill even if they don't add any other ingredients in the mix.  But again, if someone has some smoking gun that proves that there was a calculated and nefarious intent, I would like to see it. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nobody is "out to get you", RWHN. Some of us just think you're wrong and that your arguments in this arena show a dismaying lack of consistency, eloquence, or credibility. Is that really so hard to believe?

Do you and ECH PM each other before you post in this thread?  Or is "eloquence" the secret PD.COM forum "word of the day"?

My consistency is fine.  The problem with these debates is the different knowledge bases.  It's pretty clear that my knowledge base is a bit different than some on the other side, and so it doesn't really matter what I say, it's always going to be viewed as "wrong".  This gets into that "knows just enough to be dangerous" idea. 

I'm not sure how it's secret when he used it in a post before I did? 

As I've pointed out before, my friend who has an MPH also disagrees with you. She works on the side of health care and has a different perspective than you, but you, much as you did just there with us, tried to belittle her knowledge base by calling her "misinformed". 



Not even sure I believe that you work in the field that you claim to work in, at this point.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The larger point I was making was pretty clear.  You and I both know you are just trying to "get me", which is fine.  It clearly is a thing with you and Nigel, a need to discredit me. 

This would be where the "out to get you" meme comes from. It's not YOU, it's your IDEAS that I find spurious.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

BIP in Full Effect!

Those who experience the drug culture have a very different set of data and perceptions.
Those who work with children and drug abuse have a very different set of data and perceptions.
Those who work in healthcare, dealing with drug issues have a very different set of data and perceptions.
Those who philosophically love personal freedom are arguing from a very different set of data and perceptions.

And we all argue about who is 'right', as if there's some single objective truth about this whole debate.

The philosophical position is right in some sense. We as individuals are (or at least should be) free to put what we want into our own bodies.... and if the government is involved at all, it should be AT LEAST in the area of full disclosure.

The healthcare position is right in some sense. People with addiction issues need help, not prison. People who don't feel well and feel better when they smoke pot, should smoke pot.

The children debate is right in some sense. I've seen people that started doing drugs as children and many of them have had serious consequences.

The people that enjoy drugs responsibly also are right in some sense... I've smoked pot for 12 years, while holding down a six figure job, developing security solutions for a huge corporation and having a great life... never once spent a night in my parents basement.

To think that the governments 'facts', or My Local Anti-Drug team, or personal experience or philosophy or health care issues are THE ISSUE seems to be the root of these debates. Perhaps we should all remember what this one really smart Discordian said:

"A conclusion is simply where you stopped thinking"

[Freeky]

Because of this thread, I'm going to bump another thread. 

You fuckers just don't know when to leave well enough alone.

[East Coast Hustle]

Again, with the "out to get you" meme.  I didn't say anyone was "out to get me", I was simply observing a pattern in posting.  That pattern being disagreeing with my position, and then tacking on some kind of statement along the lines of "oh woe the children that RWHN is trying to help."  In other words, "I disagree with you, and, you must be pretty awful at what you do."

Really? Because I'm pretty sure it's been less than 24 hours since you told me I was trying to "get you".

And yeah, if your job is to mitigate drug abuse in children and you either 1) think that the things you take as "facts" in regards to how drugs work in the body and how both the black market and the federal government work in regards to recreational drugs are really true OR 2) think that spreading those sorts of lies and misinformation is helping your cause, then I'm'a have to go ahead and say that you are not very good at your job. Some of the things you say and appear to actually believe are so egregiously wrong that I wonder if Nigel isn't onto something with regards to wondering if you actually work in the drug prevention field at all. At the very least, I'd sure as hell like to know where you got your field-related education and what level of related degree you hold.