How We Protect At-Risk Kids.

[AFK]

No, that would be Devin Townsend.

Yes, well, once again you make my point for me.

Devin Townsend is way more metal than In Flames could ever hope to be. 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

No, that would be Devin Townsend.

Yes, well, once again you make my point for me.

FTR, RWHN is actually correct here.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Dude you bring up how you totally have sex with your girlfriend like some kid who just lost his virginity as if it were somehow relevant to the conversation instead of doing something like providing your documentation. You deserve to be mocked for that.

[AFK]

Actually, I haven't done that at all. 

[AFK]

No, that would be Devin Townsend.

Yes, well, once again you make my point for me.

FTR, RWHN is actually correct here.

Of course I am.

[AFK]

And, AA, before you go furiously searching through the thread may I remind you of this:

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/61.php

[AFK]

Seriously, reactions are so predictable around here.  I knew you would see the Pentagon.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Right which is why we know that your girlfriend is quite familiar with the inside of your house.

[AFK]

Also, y'all are wildly inconsistent.  You want to mock me for posting about having sex with my GF (which I haven't actually done) AND also say that my GF doesn't exist.

Which of course just goes to show the level of unthinking, knee-jerk butt-hurt at play.  Which is what continues to make this thread so amusing and fun for me.

It's an excellent case study in Grey Face-ism.

[AFK]

Right which is why we know that your girlfriend is quite familiar with the inside of your house.

Again, you are only choosing to see the Pentagon. 

[AFK]

There is another pretty good explanation for how someone could be very familiar with the inside of a home that doesn't involve sex. Let's see who can come up with it.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Ok so youre not getting laid after all and im seeing pentagons instead of the documentation you mentioned.

[AFK]

I also said nothing about not getting laid.

Look past the Pentagons.

I can understand why you might want to change the subject now. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I would like to understand just what a "ruined life" consists of.

I dont know why, but i do.

It's really very simple.

Doing drugs = ruined life

Safe from drugs = life not ruined.

TOTALLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG.

Other exciting things that totally do not ruin lives:

- Decades-long incarceration for minor drug offenses
- Permanent records classifying someone as a DIRTY CRIMINAL
- Inability to gain employment due to said records
- Living life according to oversimplified and unscientific RWHN-brand "Ideals"

It is also worth noting that, every time someone brings up the point that alcohol is perfectly legal yet more harmful in every measurable way than marijuana, RWHN dodges by claiming "well that's the way the law is written, and I'm not trying to make the world perfect, just trying to keep it from getting worse."

HOWEVER, those existing laws which RWHN is not interested in changing are the very laws which lead to the types of "totally not ruining lives" situations I listed above. When THESE are brought up, RWHN's response (if he bothers to give one) is "I advocate for [diversion/therapy/etc], not harsh criminal penalties for young small-time offenders."

Which is it, RWHN? Do you want to preserve the legal status quo, or do you want to improve it? You can't claim both of those things and remain logically consistent.

You are, of course, wrong.  Legalization will lead to more access to youth and lead to more use and addiction.  So that is a non-starter.  PLUS, legalization would leave it illegal for minors, so you do nothing to change the issues with financial aid, employability, etc. 

However, within the current structure one can advocate for changes in consequences.  Diversion, reforming student aid rules and laws, etc., etc.

That is the way to go and is perfectly, logically consistent.

Sort of like you, your kids, and beer.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Also just saying i dont doubt your girlfriend exists. You seem to be conflating me with everyone else. So. No inconsistency there.