Modest Proposal: Drugs are a tool of The Machine, and ergo, Rich White Guys in Suits(tm), to scam money from the poor.
Convince me that I'm wrong.
Kind of hard to argue with that when the opioid epidemic is being directly fueled by the medical industry and taxed by the gov.
Depending on what definition of "drugs" you utilize, your argument can be strong or situated in wackjob territory.
:deadthread:
Quote from: Faust on July 02, 2019, 12:29:42 PM
Kind of hard to argue with that when the opioid epidemic is being directly fueled by the medical industry and taxed by the gov.
Right?
Quote from: The Johnny on July 02, 2019, 12:52:36 PM
Depending on what definition of "drugs" you utilize, your argument can be strong or situated in wackjob territory.
Whatever definition you want. The power balance is the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
Quote from: Norman on July 02, 2019, 01:24:05 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 02, 2019, 12:52:36 PM
Depending on what definition of "drugs" you utilize, your argument can be strong or situated in wackjob territory.
Whatever definition you want. The power balance is the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
Ok, so surgery anesthesia, heart medication, anti-psychotics and anti-biotics = BAD?
Drugs are good. I believe every molecule has the right to exist. If someone can trick you to OD on potatoes without suffering major consequenses for taking too much immorality you MAY have deserved it.
Quote from: TastyCle on July 02, 2019, 06:34:55 PM
I believe every molecule has the right to exist.
(RS)-Propan-2-yl methylphosphonofluoridate.
Sarin.
Quote from: TastyCle on July 02, 2019, 08:30:49 PM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 02, 2019, 07:22:03 PM
Sarin.
Even prions have NOAEL, our biology is just noninclusive.
Sarin is a synthetic molecule, which is used in chemical warfare. It does not appear to occur in nature, nor does it appear to have any use other than killing people horribly.
Do you believe that this molecule, Sarin, has a right to exist?
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 02, 2019, 08:56:31 PM
Quote from: TastyCle on July 02, 2019, 08:30:49 PM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 02, 2019, 07:22:03 PM
Sarin.
Even prions have NOAEL, our biology is just noninclusive.
Sarin is a synthetic molecule, which is used in chemical warfare. It does not appear to occur in nature, nor does it appear to have any use other than killing people horribly.
Do you believe that this molecule, Sarin, has a right to exist?
It's just gunpowder that people get squeamish about.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 02, 2019, 08:56:31 PM
Quote from: TastyCle on July 02, 2019, 08:30:49 PM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 02, 2019, 07:22:03 PM
Sarin.
Even prions have NOAEL, our biology is just noninclusive.
Sarin is a synthetic molecule, which is used in chemical warfare. It does not appear to occur in nature, nor does it appear to have any use other than killing people horribly.
Do you believe that this molecule, Sarin, has a right to exist?
Well at least Sarin
knows what they want to do when they grow up.
Quote from: TastyCle on July 03, 2019, 03:27:03 AM
Well at least Sarin knows what they want to do when they grow up.
:kingmeh:
Well, that was lame. By being noncommittal, you've left me with reason to believe that you condone the production of chemical weapons.
There were at least five different responses you could have gone with:
1. Admitting your statement that "every molecule has the right to exist" may have not been entirely correct.
2. Declaring that sarin does, in fact, have a right to exist, and that it is our moral obligation to produce it.
3. Accusing me of taking your sentence out of context, and then restating your post in a form that wasn't easily dismissed. I'd be annoyed by this one, but I likely wouldn't belabor the point.
4. Replying with something off-topic, funny, clever, and/or outrageously stupid.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 03, 2019, 04:37:51 AM
:kingmeh:
Why would I want to fit into your frame of valid answers? I bet you have already built heurestics to counter each of the 4 options you presented. That discussion would've been terminally boring, as we've both wandered down that path.
Anyways, what makes Sarin dangerous is that they are kept locked in containers and they become angry and never evolve into less harmful substances. Saying Sarin is bad is like saying strong interaction is bad because it can kill people.
I'm not sure what you are arguing, but you are wrong and you smell.
Quote from: TastyCle on July 03, 2019, 09:10:58 AM
Why would I want to fit into your frame of valid answers?
Why
wouldn't you want to condemn chemical warfare?
Quote
I bet you have already built heurestics to counter each of the 4 options you presented.
Three of those response patterns would have ended this exchange. One of them still can.
Quote
Anyways, what makes Sarin dangerous is that they are kept locked in containers and they become angry and never evolve into less harmful substances
I guess you were trying to be funny? But Sarin has a short shelf life, and breaks down fairly quickly.
Quote
Saying Sarin is bad is like saying strong interaction is bad because it can kill people.
That's false equivalence. Water can be used to torture and kill, but it would be ridiculous to claim that makes it evil. Sarin can
only be used to maim and kill.
Quote
I'm not sure what you are arguing, but you are wrong and you smell.
I thought I was being kinda transparent, but I'll break it down. Here are my claims:
Chemical weapons (of the lethal type) are brutal, horrific, inhumane. (Let's not pretend we're talking about pepper spray and tear gas in this context. Not that I'm a fan of those, either...)
Only the most horrible monster would believe that chemical weapons should exist.
Sarin's only raison d'etre is as a chemical weapon.
Sarin is a molecular compound.
Sarin only exists if someone synthesizes it.
The
unqualified statement that all molecules have a right to exist is equivalent to claiming that Sarin should be synthesized.
You have claimed all molecules have a right to exist.
Therefore, you have claimed we should manufacture Sarin.
Therefore, you are a proponent of chemical weapons.
Therefore, you,
personally are a horrible monster.
(A few of us around here
are horrible monsters, but at least we're intellectually honest about it.)
What a surprise, RWHN starting another drug thread.
Because he's not a tedious fanatic or anything, oh no.
Remind me I really owe you a big fuck-off post about the ethics of chemical weapons and the arguments you're using later, CNO. Don't want to get between a monster and their meal, but once he's starting to smell, I want to refine your weapons some. Spoiler: This is a shoddy line of argument and you can do better.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 03, 2019, 02:26:06 PM
1.Chemical weapons (of the lethal type) are brutal, horrific, inhumane. (Let's not pretend we're talking about pepper spray and tear gas in this context. Not that I'm a fan of those, either...)
2. Only the most horrible monster would believe that chemical weapons should exist.
3. Sarin's only raison d'etre is as a chemical weapon.
4. Sarin is a molecular compound.
5. Sarin only exists if someone synthesizes it.
6. The unqualified statement that all molecules have a right to exist is equivalent to claiming that Sarin should be synthesized.
7. You have claimed all molecules have a right to exist.
8.Therefore, you have claimed we should manufacture Sarin.
9. Therefore, you are a proponent of chemical weapons.
10. Therefore, you, personally are a horrible monster.
1. Yep. Imagine if they weren't.
2. I'm not sure about that superlative buddy :lulz: Are you really gonna award me the title of evil overlord for just wandering into morally questionable side of the argument?
3. I'm not gonna google your fancy terms.
4. Really? For me sarin is a fluffy little creature that goes around eating peoples toenails.
5. And stops existing the second someone stops synthetizing it?
6. No, I didn't say sarin has a right to begin it's existence.
7. Stems from the idea that everything has a right to exist. Imagine if it didnt.
8. If sarin cannot manufacture itself that's its own choice. We gave it a chance tho.
9. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with sarin is a good guy with sarin.
10. You either keep mistaking stupidity to malice or you really want to make me question my morality. Or something entirely different.
If ya wanna take this off the streets, I have a comfy cellar. PM me for the address.
Quote from: Cain on July 03, 2019, 04:45:30 PM
What a surprise, RWHN starting another drug thread.
Because he's not a tedious fanatic or anything, oh no.
Oh, crap, all of the RWHN WOMPS are on one of my old hard drives and I can't access them.
I suppose I can go to the old "&DRUGZ&DRUGZ&DRUGZ" thread and replace them, though.
Quote from: Cain on July 03, 2019, 04:45:30 PM
What a surprise, RWHN starting another drug thread.
Because he's not a tedious fanatic or anything, oh no.
Rules say we boot him again, but I'm not sure I can be arsed. It's 43C out there.
Thoughts to my PM box, please.
Quote from: nullified on July 03, 2019, 06:34:25 PM
Remind me I really owe you a big fuck-off post about the ethics of chemical weapons and the arguments you're using later, CNO. Don't want to get between a monster and their meal, but once he's starting to smell, I want to refine your weapons some. Spoiler: This is a shoddy line of argument and you can do better.
You have piqued my curiosity. I shall report to the re-education cube.
(I am aware the quality of my thinking is down lately. Too much sleep deprivation, I guess.)
Quote from: TastyCle on July 03, 2019, 09:30:07 PM
2. I'm not sure about that superlative buddy :lulz: Are you really gonna award me the title of evil overlord for just wandering into morally questionable side of the argument?
Not every Nazi was Hitler. There is a wide spectrum of "horrible monster" between "evil overlord" and "garbage wrapped in skin."
Quote
3. I'm not gonna google your fancy terms.
"raison d'etre" = "reason for existence".
Quote
6. No, I didn't say sarin has a right to begin it's existence.
Do you know what "sophistry" is, or do I have to define that for you, too?
Quote
7. Stems from the idea that everything has a right to exist. Imagine if it didnt.
Rights are a social construct, not a physical one. A pebble on the road has neither rights or obligations. If I say that I think humans have the right to free speech, then I necessarily endorse free speech. If you say chemical weapons have a right to exist, then you endorse their existence.
Quote
8. If sarin cannot manufacture itself that's its own choice. We gave it a chance tho.
What kind of amoral psychopath would give sarin a chance to exist?
Quote
9. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with sarin is a good guy with sarin.
There are no good guys with sarin.
Quote
10. You either keep mistaking stupidity to malice or you really want to make me question my morality. Or something entirely different.
So which is it? Are you stupid, or malicious? ...nah, I'm just kidding. I already know.
Quote
If ya wanna take this off the streets, I have a comfy cellar. PM me for the address.
...wait...am I talking to a
teenage boy? Eww.
Wait, thats actually RWHN :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 04, 2019, 01:19:54 AM
Quote from: nullified on July 03, 2019, 06:34:25 PM
Remind me I really owe you a big fuck-off post about the ethics of chemical weapons and the arguments you're using later, CNO. Don't want to get between a monster and their meal, but once he's starting to smell, I want to refine your weapons some. Spoiler: This is a shoddy line of argument and you can do better.
You have piqued my curiosity. I shall report to the re-education cube.
(I am aware the quality of my thinking is down lately. Too much sleep deprivation, I guess.)
Oh, don't worry about the cube. I broke it earlier anyhow. Besides that, I want to wait until you've had your fun. This fellow can't even see the great gaping gaps in your argument, I don't see the point in spoiling the answers for them.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 04, 2019, 12:49:05 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 03, 2019, 04:45:30 PM
What a surprise, RWHN starting another drug thread.
Because he's not a tedious fanatic or anything, oh no.
Rules say we boot him again, but I'm not sure I can be arsed. It's 43C out there.
Thoughts to my PM box, please.
I'm pretty sure there's a picture that's compulsory to post now. You know the one.
LOOK AT THESE FUCKING LEMURS ALL FUCKED UP FALLING OUT OF TREES AND SHIT. IT COULD BE YOUR CHILDREN UP THERE EATING MILLIPEDES.
- RWHN YOU BETTER GO GIVE THEM SOME PAMPHLETS.
https://youtu.be/yYXoCHLqr4o
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 04, 2019, 01:28:49 AM
Quote from: TastyCle on July 03, 2019, 09:30:07 PM
2. I'm not sure about that superlative buddy :lulz: Are you really gonna award me the title of evil overlord for just wandering into morally questionable side of the argument?
Not every Nazi was Hitler. There is a wide spectrum of "the most horrible monster" between "evil overlord" and "garbage wrapped in skin."
Quote
3. I'm not gonna google your fancy terms.
"raison d'etre" = "reason for existence" and you didn't want to use the understandable form of the term because..?
Quote
6. No, I didn't say sarin has a right to begin it's existence.
Do you know what "sophistry" is, or do I have to define that for you, too? This is the reason intellectuals cannot reach people.
Quote
7. Stems from the idea that everything has a right to exist. Imagine if it didnt.
Rights are a social construct, not a physical one. A pebble on the road has neither rights or obligations. If I say that I think humans have the right to free speech, then I necessarily endorse free speech. If you say chemical weapons have a right to exist, then you endorse their existence. Social rights follow social laws, physical rights follow physical ones. I was antropomorphizing all the way. I even kept referring Sarin as they.
Quote
8. If sarin cannot manufacture itself that's its own choice. We gave it a chance tho.
What kind of amoral psychopath would give sarin a chance to exist? They wanted to end the war quick to minimize the losses.
Quote
9. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with sarin is a good guy with sarin.
There are no good guys with sarin, because it is already illegal for mortals.
Quote
10. You either keep mistaking stupidity to malice or you really want to make me question my morality. Or something entirely different.
So which is it? Are you stupid, or malicious? ...nah, I'm just kidding. I already know. I may be braindead, but my nose still works. You stink.
Quote
If ya wanna take this off the streets, I have a comfy cellar. PM me for the address.
...wait...am I talking to a teenage boy? Eww. I have handcuffs and shit.
You also forgot the 1.. I was especially proud of that one.
P.S. you are claiming that bad things don't have right to exist when all the evidence points the other way.
Do we collectively have the energy to get to 100 pages? I'd be surprised if we get to 10 pages...
Maybe the real question is how batshit insane RWHN still is, since those sort of threads were about 50% his own personal contribution and the other 50% everyone chipping in.
Like, the Nigel thread was like 3 pages? We're getting old :sad:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 04, 2019, 12:49:05 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 03, 2019, 04:45:30 PM
What a surprise, RWHN starting another drug thread.
Because he's not a tedious fanatic or anything, oh no.
Rules say we boot him again, but I'm not sure I can be arsed. It's 43C out there.
Thoughts to my PM box, please.
I just like to drop in from time to time to see how you spags are doing. Despite our differences over the years, I'm still fond of you fuckers. :)
Quote from: The Johnny on July 04, 2019, 11:27:56 AM
Do we collectively have the energy to get to 100 pages? I'd be surprised if we get to 10 pages...
Maybe the real question is how batshit insane RWHN still is, since those sort of threads were about 50% his own personal contribution and the other 50% everyone chipping in.
Like, the Nigel thread was like 3 pages? We're getting old :sad:
Yeah, that's not gonna happen, I don't have it in me anymore. I mean, IRL, after all the death threars I've received because of my work, it's just kinda not thqt interesting to get all wrapped up into a message board thread.
Quote from: TastyCle on July 04, 2019, 09:57:06 AM
Social rights follow social laws,
You have that backward. A group of humans develops a shared set of values or morality, decide that they have certain rights, and
then create laws to protect those rights. (Ostensibly, anyway. Reality is messy).
Quote
physical rights follow physical ones.
No. Physical laws are a different concept than human laws. Physical laws are a way by which humans try to describe how the world around them works. If (when) they describe the world wrong, that doesn't change the reality.
"Rights" have no meaning when regarding raw physical processes. A politician can declare that people with a certain ethnicity shouldn't have the right to free speech, and send the police to beat them to a pulp for speaking out.
But how do you try to apply the idea of rights to a single atom? It can't make choices, has no autonomy, no illusion of free will. It doesn't care if you lock it in a cage, smash it into quarks, or let it free to wander the cosmos. These actions may have moral consequences at
human scale, but nothing you can do will infringe on the rights of the atom. It hasn't any.
Trying to apply rights to inanimate objects, or processes, is projecting a human concept into a domain where it simply doesn't apply.
Quote
I was antropomorphizing all the way. I even kept referring Sarin as they.
You know "anthropomorphize", but you don't know "raison d'etre"?
Quote
I may be braindead,
Well, they say acknowledging it is the first step.
Quote from: TastyCle on July 04, 2019, 11:16:11 AM
P.S. you are claiming that bad things don't have right to exist when all the evidence points the other way.
No, I'm not claiming that. You have claimed that all molecules have a right to exist, and I am claiming *that* is equivalent to condoning the production and use of chemical weapons. Just because I say you're wrong, doesn't mean that I think the opposite of what you are saying is true.
I think that ascribing a moral value (like the right to exist) to a chemical is absurd.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 04, 2019, 02:53:18 PM
*some incoherent babble*
If you say that the concept of social laws is detached from the physical laws then why, for the love of Eris, do they use the same word? I'd argue they map onto each other quite well. Molecule with no right to exist would be physically impossible according to the physical laws we choose to use to describe the world. The reality doesn't give a shit if it has to break those laws when they are bullshit.
So an atom, according to the human concept of laws we apply to it, has a right to move around, hang out with other atoms, decay, exchange electrons around, and other shit I'm not aware about because I'm no atom lawyer. Likewise atom has no right to exceed the speed limit of teleport long distances. It still may be able so that, but won't when the stupid humans making rules for them are watching.
I know this seems to fuck up my first "argument" because now there would be countless prohibited atoms, but chemical weapons wouldn't be among them. Luckily, being clinically stupid has an added benefit that I can subscribe to any legal model of physics of my liking.
(I once watched a movie called
Anthropornorphizing cucumbers)
Quote from: Norman on July 02, 2019, 05:33:31 AM
Modest Proposal: Drugs are a tool of The Machine, and ergo, Rich White Guys in Suits(tm), to scam money from the poor.
Convince me that I'm wrong.
To address the original post. Yep, absolutely (assuming we are talking about recreational drugs). However I would restrict that to illegal drugs. Alcohol is a crafted product, there is a rich history and art attached to it. Although people can certainly have problems with it and companies sell garbage to people that problem exists with any product. Weed is now legal enough that a respectable quality business community has grown up around it. The same is true of tobacco, although that industry is dominated by garbage, in high tax states like Washington quality brands like American Spirit control a significant portion of the market. The black market is, of course, controlled by organized crime and corrupt government agencies, but that's easy to fix.
I'm thinking less about the addiction part, and just purely the consumption part. Pareto principle applies to licit and illicit. Most of your consumption is from 20% of consumers, who tend to be daily users of [insert drug], so that is where these companies make most of their money. Of course, that's markets as a whole. I would expect in, say, the craft beer industry, Pareto probably doesn't apply, and is more likely the inverse, just because of price, etc.
Interesting topic.
Quote from: TastyCle on July 04, 2019, 05:12:03 PM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 04, 2019, 02:53:18 PM
*some incoherent babble*
If you say that the concept of social laws is detached from the physical laws then why, for the love of Eris, do they use the same word?
There is no law that says a word must mean the exactly the same thing in different contexts.
Attend a class in highschool physics, and you will learn that words like "energy", "power", and "momentum" have more rigorous meanings in a scientific context, which sometimes don't reflect how they are used in day-to-day language.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 04, 2019, 07:30:46 PM
Quote from: TastyCle on July 04, 2019, 05:12:03 PM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 04, 2019, 02:53:18 PM
*some incoherent babble*
If you say that the concept of social laws is detached from the physical laws then why, for the love of Eris, do they use the same word?
There is no law that says a word must mean the exactly the same thing in different contexts.
Attend a class in highschool physics, and you will learn that words like "energy", "power", and "momentum" have more rigorous meanings in a scientific context, which sometimes don't reflect how they are used in day-to-day language.
I was pretty good at highschool physics before DRUGS.
Quote from: TastyCle on July 04, 2019, 08:24:26 PM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 04, 2019, 07:30:46 PM
Quote from: TastyCle on July 04, 2019, 05:12:03 PM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 04, 2019, 02:53:18 PM
*some incoherent babble*
If you say that the concept of social laws is detached from the physical laws then why, for the love of Eris, do they use the same word?
There is no law that says a word must mean the exactly the same thing in different contexts.
Attend a class in highschool physics, and you will learn that words like "energy", "power", and "momentum" have more rigorous meanings in a scientific context, which sometimes don't reflect how they are used in day-to-day language.
I was pretty good at highschool physics before DRUGS.
lolwut
Quote from: Norman on July 04, 2019, 06:11:43 PM
I'm thinking less about the addiction part, and just purely the consumption part. Pareto principle applies to licit and illicit. Most of your consumption is from 20% of consumers, who tend to be daily users of [insert drug], so that is where these companies make most of their money. Of course, that's markets as a whole. I would expect in, say, the craft beer industry, Pareto probably doesn't apply, and is more likely the inverse, just because of price, etc.
Interesting topic.
The legal weed market is pretty similar to the craft beer industry, at least in WA where I live. It's also dominated by small businesses because of the restrictive federal laws.
:lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 04, 2019, 10:00:09 PM
Quote from: TastyCle on July 04, 2019, 05:12:03 PM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 04, 2019, 02:53:18 PM
*some incoherent babble*
Okay, written off.
Come on, I didn't even bypass their points!
Quote from: Norman on July 04, 2019, 10:16:46 PM
Quote from: TastyCle on July 04, 2019, 08:24:26 PM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 04, 2019, 07:30:46 PM
Quote from: TastyCle on July 04, 2019, 05:12:03 PM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 04, 2019, 02:53:18 PM
*some incoherent babble*
If you say that the concept of social laws is detached from the physical laws then why, for the love of Eris, do they use the same word?
There is no law that says a word must mean the exactly the same thing in different contexts.
Attend a class in highschool physics, and you will learn that words like "energy", "power", and "momentum" have more rigorous meanings in a scientific context, which sometimes don't reflect how they are used in day-to-day language.
I was pretty good at highschool physics before DRUGS.
lolwut
It's true tho. I got good grades, but then I did a year glued to my bong and used more MDMA and shrooms than my brains, and now all the knowledge about science stuff I couldn't discuss with my druggie friends are gone. I know many more black metal bands tho, so maybe it evens out.
Fuck off, you tedious cretin.
Quote from: TastyCle on July 05, 2019, 07:23:21 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 04, 2019, 10:00:09 PM
Okay, written off.
Come on, I didn't even bypass their points!
Of course you did. You skipped past most of them. I don't think you understand that a random response does not constitute an argument. But I hate repeating myself in a written forum, and it's not as if I could compel you to answer, anyway.
Regardless, I've come to a pretty good understanding of how you think, so there's no point in my spending any more time on you.
ftp://
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 05, 2019, 02:23:15 PM
Quote from: TastyCle on July 05, 2019, 07:23:21 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 04, 2019, 10:00:09 PM
Okay, written off.
Come on, I didn't even bypass their points!
Of course you did. You skipped past most of them. I don't think you understand that a random response does not constitute an argument. But I hate repeating myself in a written forum, and it's not as if I could compel you to answer, anyway.
Regardless, I've come to a pretty good understanding of how you think, so there's no point in my spending any more time on you.
Oh that was an argument? I thought you just randomly picked on my irresponible choice of words, and started accusing me of being a mass murderer. I just try to defend myself but as I haven't been coached on the
correct way to argue, all I can do is to spew bullshit. Besides admitting being wrong of course, but that would've been BORING.
Was fun anyway, thanks!
Your stench is something abysmal.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 05, 2019, 02:23:15 PM
Quote from: TastyCle on July 05, 2019, 07:23:21 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 04, 2019, 10:00:09 PM
Okay, written off.
Come on, I didn't even bypass their points!
Of course you did. You skipped past most of them. I don't think you understand that a random response does not constitute an argument. But I hate repeating myself in a written forum, and it's not as if I could compel you to answer, anyway.
Regardless, I've come to a pretty good understanding of how you think, so there's no point in my spending any more time on you.
I keep forgetting that you're not an old-timer here. When this board was cooking, we'd get three new guys like this per week.
Since the fun is over, I'll write that post up for you tomorrow, CNO. PM me if I forget and you care enough. Would do it tonight, but need to go to bed in a minute so I can do one hundred things tomorrow.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 08, 2019, 04:48:31 AM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 05, 2019, 02:23:15 PM
Quote from: TastyCle on July 05, 2019, 07:23:21 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 04, 2019, 10:00:09 PM
Okay, written off.
Come on, I didn't even bypass their points!
Of course you did. You skipped past most of them. I don't think you understand that a random response does not constitute an argument. But I hate repeating myself in a written forum, and it's not as if I could compel you to answer, anyway.
Regardless, I've come to a pretty good understanding of how you think, so there's no point in my spending any more time on you.
I keep forgetting that you're not an old-timer here. When this board was cooking, we'd get three new guys like this per week.
Wait, I'm not unique? Who was it? WHO STOLE MY PERSONALITY?
Quote from: nullified on July 08, 2019, 05:51:15 AM
Since the fun is over, I'll write that post up for you tomorrow, CNO. PM me if I forget and you care enough. Would do it tonight, but need to go to bed in a minute so I can do one hundred things tomorrow.
Whenever you're ready.
Come at me with the intent to kill.
So, I might be rushing this. If there are mistakes, please poke at them but don't burn me to the ground. I'm busy today and I'll correct my slips given a chance.
There are a few problems when people bring up chemical weapons. These are problems that are mostly issues with not helping to propagate bad signal, rather than moral or logical ones, but those issues leave open great honking logical holes anyway.
First of all, the difference between a chemical that is a weapon and a chemical that is not is so small as to be invisible. Let's take an example so crazy it can't be weaponized, despite attempts by multiple world powers during wartime.
Fluorine gas will, in short order: set a car's paint on fire, set the metal the paint is on on fire, set the interior and the people within on fire, fill those people and every moist surface available with hydrofluoric acid, and poison everything full of hydrofluoric acid with around 25 different metabolic poisons that we know of — for starters. Fluorine gas has a chemical formula of F. Trying to regulate chemicals on the basis of fluorine gas would lead to banning either all single-element chemicals, all chemicals containing fluorine, or both. Both single element chemicals and fluorine compounds are absolutely necessary for modern living, and single element chemicals have always been so.
It's easy to say that you could base your criteria on reactivity, or on successful weaponization. Reactivity is a no-go, that bans fucking water. And hydrochloric acid, which is in your stomach now, for that matter. And a billion chemicals used in all manner of synthesis. Successful weaponization is a stupid idea too. That leads to bans after the fact, it's as ineffective as drug prohibition. I sure don't want designer chemwar.
You could talk about classes of compounds. No one would seriously help you there, though. There's almost no visible difference between a given compound that kills, and a totally inert counterpart. We can't even predict that a given analogue for a given chemical will work, we have to test it. Broader classes than that would prohibit natural chemicals in our own bodies and thousands of drugs and industrial chemicals.
Then you can come back to chemicals that have ever been tested for weaponization, or been successfully weaponized. Aside from the ineffectiveness, there's a second issue.
Phosgene is used in industrial synthesis.
Chlorine gas is a weapon of war that cleans our pools.
Mustard gas gave rise to a whole class of chemotherapy drugs.
Sarin was an accidental discovery while producing organophosphate pesticides. I'm pretty sure it or a close relative is a natural byproduct of synthesis for modern pesticides as well.
Ricin is produced by fucking castor beans.
Attempting to ban chemical weapon production for ANY purpose is like saying that we should discard all our aerospace medical knowledge because it's based in Nazi human experimentation. Where it is feasible, it hamstrings us. And it is almost never feasible. Rather, you should ban weaponizing chemicals, period. If this seems to hamstring the engines of warfare, then fucking good.
Quote from: TastyCle on July 08, 2019, 01:43:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 08, 2019, 04:48:31 AM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on July 05, 2019, 02:23:15 PM
Quote from: TastyCle on July 05, 2019, 07:23:21 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 04, 2019, 10:00:09 PM
Okay, written off.
Come on, I didn't even bypass their points!
Of course you did. You skipped past most of them. I don't think you understand that a random response does not constitute an argument. But I hate repeating myself in a written forum, and it's not as if I could compel you to answer, anyway.
Regardless, I've come to a pretty good understanding of how you think, so there's no point in my spending any more time on you.
I keep forgetting that you're not an old-timer here. When this board was cooking, we'd get three new guys like this per week.
Wait, I'm not unique? Who was it? WHO STOLE MY PERSONALITY?
Poptard
Quote from: nullified on July 09, 2019, 04:25:10 PM
So, I might be rushing this. If there are mistakes, please poke at them but don't burn me to the ground. I'm busy today and I'll correct my slips given a chance.
There are a few problems when people bring up chemical weapons. These are problems that are mostly issues with not helping to propagate bad signal, rather than moral or logical ones, but those issues leave open great honking logical holes anyway.
First of all, the difference between a chemical that is a weapon and a chemical that is not is so small as to be invisible. Let's take an example so crazy it can't be weaponized, despite attempts by multiple world powers during wartime.
Fluorine gas will, in short order: set a car's paint on fire, set the metal the paint is on on fire, set the interior and the people within on fire, fill those people and every moist surface available with hydrofluoric acid, and poison everything full of hydrofluoric acid with around 25 different metabolic poisons that we know of — for starters. Fluorine gas has a chemical formula of F. Trying to regulate chemicals on the basis of fluorine gas would lead to banning either all single-element chemicals, all chemicals containing fluorine, or both. Both single element chemicals and fluorine compounds are absolutely necessary for modern living, and single element chemicals have always been so.
It's easy to say that you could base your criteria on reactivity, or on successful weaponization. Reactivity is a no-go, that bans fucking water. And hydrochloric acid, which is in your stomach now, for that matter. And a billion chemicals used in all manner of synthesis. Successful weaponization is a stupid idea too. That leads to bans after the fact, it's as ineffective as drug prohibition. I sure don't want designer chemwar.
You could talk about classes of compounds. No one would seriously help you there, though. There's almost no visible difference between a given compound that kills, and a totally inert counterpart. We can't even predict that a given analogue for a given chemical will work, we have to test it. Broader classes than that would prohibit natural chemicals in our own bodies and thousands of drugs and industrial chemicals.
Then you can come back to chemicals that have ever been tested for weaponization, or been successfully weaponized. Aside from the ineffectiveness, there's a second issue.
Phosgene is used in industrial synthesis.
Chlorine gas is a weapon of war that cleans our pools.
Mustard gas gave rise to a whole class of chemotherapy drugs.
Sarin was an accidental discovery while producing organophosphate pesticides. I'm pretty sure it or a close relative is a natural byproduct of synthesis for modern pesticides as well.
Ricin is produced by fucking castor beans.
Attempting to ban chemical weapon production for ANY purpose is like saying that we should discard all our aerospace medical knowledge because it's based in Nazi human experimentation. Where it is feasible, it hamstrings us. And it is almost never feasible. Rather, you should ban weaponizing chemicals, period. If this seems to hamstring the engines of warfare, then fucking good.
May I switch sides and propose we prohibit ALL chemical products, as there are plenty of natural alternatives?
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/013/604/thisisbait.png)
It's shitty bait anyway. They deserve to know just how dumb they are.
No, you may not change your mind because everything is fucking chemicals. Your goddamn hands are chemicals. There's no natural substitute for chemicals because everything tangible that we interact with on the regular is chemicals. Including any and all natural substances. Banning all chemical substances is as impossible as banning time. No matter how hard you make believe, it's still there and will always still be there.
Quote from: nullified on July 09, 2019, 09:14:00 PM
It's shitty bait anyway. They deserve to know just how dumb they are.
No, you may not change your mind because everything is fucking chemicals. Your goddamn hands are chemicals. There's no natural substitute for chemicals because everything tangible that we interact with on the regular is chemicals. Including any and all natural substances. Banning all chemical substances is as impossible as banning time. No matter how hard you make believe, it's still there and will always still be there.
Hear me out!
Well of course you cannot immediately make all the chemicals not exist. In the scale of the universe it would take at least 46.5 years. But who are we to tell the Andromedans what to do with their chemicals?
No, what I'm proposing is that we figure out a way to hurl this planet to the sun. That way we would be able to enjoy warm weather and chemical free lifestyle for the rest of the eternity. Not to even speak about driving down the oil industry with all the PURE ENERGY!
Quote from: nullified on July 09, 2019, 04:25:10 PM
Phosgene is used in industrial synthesis.
Also, it is almost fucking impossible to not generate any phosgene in the industrial use of chemicals. You can minimize it, but there are simply too many interactions that can generate it.
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2019, 08:32:47 PM
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/013/604/thisisbait.png)
Quote from: nullified on July 09, 2019, 04:25:10 PM
First of all, the difference between a chemical that is a weapon and a chemical that is not is so small as to be invisible.
Part of the reason I was fixated on Sarin was because I couldn't find any non-chemical-weapony uses for it, and that seemed like a sufficient basis for a distinction. (But this falls apart, below).
Quote
Fluorine gas will, in short order: set a car's paint on fire, set the metal the paint is on on fire, set the interior and the people within on fire, fill those people and every moist surface available with hydrofluoric acid, and poison everything full of hydrofluoric acid with around 25 different metabolic poisons that we know of -- for starters. Fluorine gas has a chemical formula of F. Trying to regulate chemicals on the basis of fluorine gas would lead to banning either all single-element chemicals, all chemicals containing fluorine, or both. Both single element chemicals and fluorine compounds are absolutely necessary for modern living, and single element chemicals have always been so.
Forget about straight fluorine. Chlorine trifloride is one of my favourite chemicals. It causes spontaneous ignition in sand and asbestos, and makes water explode. It's so dangerous that even the Nazis gave up on weaponizing it. It was tested as a rocket fuel oxidizer at one point, but was rather too nasty to work with. It is currently used as a cleaning agent in the semiconductor industry.
Quote
It's easy to say that you could base your criteria on reactivity, or on successful weaponization. Reactivity is a no-go, that bans fucking water.
I could have sworn I had noted water as a chemical weapon earlier in this thread, but going back, it appears I just listed it as a tool of torture and murder, and didn't draw the connection explicitly.
Quote
Mustard gas gave rise to a whole class of chemotherapy drugs.
Sarin was an accidental discovery while producing organophosphate pesticides. I'm pretty sure it or a close relative is a natural byproduct of synthesis for modern pesticides as well.
...and...boom. There's the weak point in my argument. I claimed that the only use for Sarin was as a chemical weapon, but...how would I know that? I'm not a chemist. Maybe it's an intermediate step in synthesizing something useful. Maybe someone wants to study it to develop a treatment for people exposed to it. And even if it doesn't have any peaceful uses right now, maybe it will in the future.
Was the synthesis of Sarin an immoral act the first time it was done? Obviously not, if it was accidental. What about subsequent times?
That depends entirely on its intended use.Now, if whats-his-face
had counterattacked along this line, he might have had to admit that morality lies in how something is used, rather than the thing itself. But, if he had said that substances don't have any moral qualifications, that would give me another angle to attack the whole "molecules have rights" idea.
P.S.
Thanks.
Fun fact: even if you were a chemist, you could not tell what a given compound would do by looking at formula, structure, X-ray crystallography... etc. You can make some very well informed guesses, but knowing? It HAS to be tested.
It sounds like you've read In The Pipeline, since you know about CF3 in exactly the way I knew about it initially. There's an article on that blog about a terrifyingly nitrogenated compound that looks like the platonic ideal of boom. Turns out it's so stable you can smash it with a rock. Detonation testing failed to make it boom at all. It changes color when exposed to light — reversibly. Chemistry is complex enough that once you get out of the realm of one or two atoms, you can't assume anything. Water: great example, since it breaks every goddamned rule about density, reactivity, etc.
Sarin does so far have no known use outside of being a weapon of war. I fact checked and it isn't actually a byproduct of any chemical synthesis, but it's use (as with most chemical weapons, surprisingly) is permitted in experimental bench chemistry amounts, and it and soman, a close relative, were used in the initial synthesis of a couple pharmaceutical drugs on the market today. For obvious reasons, they use different chemicals for production at scale.
Quote from: nullified on July 10, 2019, 04:16:15 AM
It sounds like you've read In The Pipeline, since you know about CF3 in exactly the way I knew about it initially.
Actually, I became familiar with it via John Clark's
Ignition! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants. It's out of print, but apparently in the public domain. An interesting read, if you're into that sort of thing: https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf
It also taught me the term "hard start" as a euphemism for "it blew up when we tried to turn it on."
I've read Ignition!. It's an excellent read, easy to recommend to anyone who frequents these parts whether they're into chemistry or rocketry or none of the above. Sardonic sense of humor, tendency for violent explosions, people just doing it wrong. Good choice.
(That Schlieren photography thing in particular stands out as something that could have happened at one of Howl's workplaces, down to the minions summarily dismantling everything that could be used to rebuild the awful beast.)
Quote from: nullified on July 10, 2019, 09:11:11 AM
I've read Ignition!. It's an excellent read, easy to recommend to anyone who frequents these parts whether they're into chemistry or rocketry or none of the above. Sardonic sense of humor, tendency for violent explosions, people just doing it wrong. Good choice.
(That Schlieren photography thing in particular stands out as something that could have happened at one of Howl's workplaces, down to the minions summarily dismantling everything that could be used to rebuild the awful beast.)
I am in heaven right now, really. It suits my absolute lack of character.
RHWN, why are you like this?
Don't look at me, I bailed on this thread awhile ago
Quote from: Norman on July 11, 2019, 07:55:39 PM
Don't look at me, I bailed on this thread awhile ago
Your excuse literally since the PD Drug Wars, you mean?
Also, you literally started this thread. You bear a measure of responsibility for the aftermath regardless of whether you stayed or not.
Also, YOU started THIS thread, which is enough reason to question you.
OK GUYS WE BROKE THE HALLMARK OF THREE PAGES, CAN WE MAKE IT TO 10???
Quote from: nullified on July 11, 2019, 08:39:24 PM
Quote from: Norman on July 11, 2019, 07:55:39 PM
Don't look at me, I bailed on this thread awhile ago
Also, YOU started THIS thread, which is enough reason to question you.
Without defining drugs and also knowing the general opinion of this forum has not changed. Be more interesting.
I've been gone for 6 years, I honestly have no idea what you guys talk about anymore.
Quote from: Norman on July 11, 2019, 10:07:51 PM
I've been gone for 6 years, I honestly have no idea what you guys talk about anymore.
AND YET
What is it we used to say to newbs? ah, yes. LURK MOAR.
Murk Lore.
Quote from: Juana on July 11, 2019, 10:27:31 PM
What is it we used to say to newbs? ah, yes. LURK MOAR.
Boring.
And Twitter is down again. Did you guys know I have a Twitter? I actually have a bunch of Twitters.
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 12:13:58 AM
And Twitter is down again. Did you guys know I have a Twitter? I actually have a bunch of Twitters.
https://imgur.com/a/ntGhf4X (https://imgur.com/a/ntGhf4X)
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 12:12:37 AM
Quote from: Juana on July 11, 2019, 10:27:31 PM
What is it we used to say to newbs? ah, yes. LURK MOAR.
Boring.
Then why are you here? Besides shit stirring, of course.
Quote from: Juana on July 12, 2019, 12:29:44 AM
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 12:12:37 AM
Quote from: Juana on July 11, 2019, 10:27:31 PM
What is it we used to say to newbs? ah, yes. LURK MOAR.
Boring.
Then why are you here? Besides shit stirring, of course.
Masochism. He enjoys the beating and humiliation.
Quote from: kiss my axe on July 12, 2019, 12:49:51 AM
Quote from: Juana on July 12, 2019, 12:29:44 AM
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 12:12:37 AM
Quote from: Juana on July 11, 2019, 10:27:31 PM
What is it we used to say to newbs? ah, yes. LURK MOAR.
Boring.
Then why are you here? Besides shit stirring, of course.
Masochism. He enjoys the beating and humiliation.
Perhaps! I've met a few incredibly boring masochists.
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 01:02:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 12, 2019, 12:40:57 AM
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 12:12:37 AM
Quote from: Juana on July 11, 2019, 10:27:31 PM
What is it we used to say to newbs? ah, yes. LURK MOAR.
Boring.
You know where the door is.
No, I mean just lurking is boring.
I'm not suggesting that's all you do, I'm suggesting you spend a little time doing it before you get back on your bullshit
Quote from: Juana on July 12, 2019, 12:29:44 AM
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 12:12:37 AM
Quote from: Juana on July 11, 2019, 10:27:31 PM
What is it we used to say to newbs? ah, yes. LURK MOAR.
Boring.
Then why are you here? Besides shit stirring, of course.
I actually didn't come here to just stir shit. I was genuinely interested in y'all's take on my initial question, but then it meandered into chemical warfare, and well, that's cool, but didn't interest me anymore.
I mean, to be perfectly honest, I thought I would've been canned just for starting a thread and acknowledging my identity. But like I said somewhere else, I like you guys, and just wanted to come back and see how y'all are doing.
Quote from: Juana on July 12, 2019, 01:04:03 AM
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 01:02:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 12, 2019, 12:40:57 AM
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 12:12:37 AM
Quote from: Juana on July 11, 2019, 10:27:31 PM
What is it we used to say to newbs? ah, yes. LURK MOAR.
Boring.
You know where the door is.
No, I mean just lurking is boring.
I'm not suggesting that's all you do, I'm suggesting you spend a little time doing it before you get back on your bullshit
I'm not sure I even remember who you are.
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 01:04:52 AM
Quote from: Juana on July 12, 2019, 12:29:44 AM
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 12:12:37 AM
Quote from: Juana on July 11, 2019, 10:27:31 PM
What is it we used to say to newbs? ah, yes. LURK MOAR.
Boring.
Then why are you here? Besides shit stirring, of course.
I actually didn't come here to just stir shit. I was genuinely interested in y'all's take on my initial question, but then it meandered into chemical warfare, and well, that's cool, but didn't interest me anymore.
I mean, to be perfectly honest, I thought I would've been canned just for starting a thread and acknowledging my identity. But like I said somewhere else, I like you guys, and just wanted to come back and see how y'all are doing.
You didn't define "drugs" in any useful way. What did you expect to happen? Also, this is the nth thread on this topic from you and you lack nuance as far as I recall on the subject. It's boring to rehash the same crap every time you start this up.
Okay
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 01:07:04 AM
Quote from: Juana on July 12, 2019, 01:04:03 AM
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 01:02:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 12, 2019, 12:40:57 AM
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 12:12:37 AM
Quote from: Juana on July 11, 2019, 10:27:31 PM
What is it we used to say to newbs? ah, yes. LURK MOAR.
Boring.
You know where the door is.
No, I mean just lurking is boring.
I'm not suggesting that's all you do, I'm suggesting you spend a little time doing it before you get back on your bullshit
I'm not sure I even remember who you are.
I was GARBO for quite a while if that rings any bells. I rarely interacted with you and your went dormant for quite some time when I was most active if I recall correctly.
Hmm...nope. Not remembering you. Oh well.
No worries. I mostly recall you because I rolled my eyes and another every drug thread you posted, frankly.
Understandable
I just remember having an attack of the Holies in one of the Drug Threads of Yore, one of the gargantuan beasts immortalized in the peanut gallery and RWHN loudly proclaiming he didn't care what anyone else had to say at some point, at which point I wrote him off as a bog standard evangelical. Different subject matter, same old shit: live by my rules or be forever damned, for I am the way and the etc.
I was probably just having a grumpy day.
It happens.
Quote from: Team player on July 12, 2019, 01:04:52 AM
I was genuinely interested in y'all's take on my initial question, but then it meandered into chemical warfare, and well, that's cool, but didn't interest me anymore.
Your initial "question" seemed less an attempt to initiate discussion, and more a fourth-class troll. Not what I would expect from a...
team player.
The chemical warfare schtick, as silly as it may have been, was an unqualified improvement.
Eh, I have been gone for awhile, so I'm a little rusty.
You could start by not posting low effort trash like a Z-list newbie from 2007. That would be a major uptick from your activity so far. Just... really. You want serious answers? Serious discussions? Put actual brainpower behind your posts. After all, if you aren't taking your fecal stains seriously, why the fuck would we?
Huh, I don't remember you either honestly. Who were you in 2007?
Holy fuck, how am I still in the top 10 posters?
Wasn't around as anything but a lurker in 07. I've had a few names since I joined properly in, I think, 09? They were usually some variation of "null". I've contributed pretty little, honestly, and I'm probably one of the worse crazies hereabouts overall. Hard to say, since I only really fucked up here like, twice I can think of. Years ago.
Still, I know what /doesn't/ lead to anyone here taking you seriously. You're spot on for that so far, with the dismissive attitude of anyone who you don't remember being Top Dog, and the shitting on the carpet and expecting us to praise you for it. A hair better than a poptart level troll, but that's like saying Trump is a hair better than Pol Pot: setting the bar at floor height and covering it in flashing lights. You can and should do better.
oh geez, I'm just goofin around. That's what Apple Talk is for.
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 02:12:00 AM
oh geez, I'm just goofin around. That's what Apple Talk is for.
Horseshit. Proof:
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 01:41:45 AM
Okay, I'm actually serious. What is everyone's take on this feud that seems to be brewing between the liberal wing and blue dog wing? Will this be the Dems, yet again, shooting themselves in the foot in a Presidential election? I think yes.
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 01:04:52 AM
I actually didn't come here to just stir shit. I was genuinely interested in y'all's take on my initial question, but then it meandered into chemical warfare, and well, that's cool, but didn't interest me anymore.
You can do the obvious now.
Oh my god, I forgot about poptart. :lulz:
Look, be interesting and maybe shut up about drugs for ten minutes and I'm sure we'll all be less hostile towards you.
But, I haven't actually posted about drugs at all today. I have tweeted about drugs today though
Quote from: nullified on July 12, 2019, 02:42:28 AM
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 02:12:00 AM
oh geez, I'm just goofin around. That's what Apple Talk is for.
Horseshit. Proof:
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 01:41:45 AM
Okay, I'm actually serious. What is everyone's take on this feud that seems to be brewing between the liberal wing and blue dog wing? Will this be the Dems, yet again, shooting themselves in the foot in a Presidential election? I think yes.
Quote from: Norman on July 12, 2019, 01:04:52 AM
I actually didn't come here to just stir shit. I was genuinely interested in y'all's take on my initial question, but then it meandered into chemical warfare, and well, that's cool, but didn't interest me anymore.
You can do the obvious now.
That was a serious question, not in Apple Talk, I really don't understand what you're going on about.
Ah yes, the classic "ignore the half that is detrimental to your argument" technique.
Quote from: nullified on July 12, 2019, 02:03:57 AM
and I'm probably one of the worse crazies hereabouts overall.
No, you most certainly are not. You may have difficulties, but you've been a pleasure to have around.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/08/health/recreational-marijuana-laws-teens-study/index.html?utm_term=link&utm_source=fbCNN&utm_content=2019-07-14T11%3A33%3A17&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2nQ-j0_X_ChEYkavdC2bphoFGdCPEp2-62KxPs4NjgIZYlSM94LeogNQo
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on July 16, 2019, 06:39:20 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/08/health/recreational-marijuana-laws-teens-study/index.html?utm_term=link&utm_source=fbCNN&utm_content=2019-07-14T11%3A33%3A17&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2nQ-j0_X_ChEYkavdC2bphoFGdCPEp2-62KxPs4NjgIZYlSM94LeogNQo
Well duh, marijuanas is just a gateway drug, theyve moved on to injecting jenkem by now.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz:
I would be amused by what RWHN things about the vaping "epidemic" screeching that is now in vogue.
I bet you would.
Quote from: Team player on August 31, 2019, 01:33:15 PM
I bet you would.
...and it reappears. Which means it must have notifications turned on for its own threads, but otherwise isn't interested in this forum. How...
narcissistic.
Narcissism...I wonder if I can work with that. This might be an interesting experiment.
It's not narcisism, it's fanaticism. His whole life is devoted to convincing the world of a bullshit position. Humans are dumb so his day to day meat and potatoes is probably pretty effortless. He just screeches "The children assets" and the person across the desk freaks out on cue and writes a cheque. However, the law of averages dictates that occasionally, he'll encounter someone who isn't so easily swayed by logical fallacies and hysterical posturing and this makes his life difficult.
So he goes back to his Nancy Reagan shrine and clears his mind by chanting "Just say no" a couple of hundred times then waits for inspiration. Most of the time Nancy is disappointingly silent and so he frets and frets that the assets are under threat but, every now and again, Nancy will speak to him. "How about you say this..."
And suddenly the scripture will be revealed to him as an epiphany - these magic words will sway the doubters. But how to test these words? "Aha," he thinks, "I know just the place!" So he comes back here and we send him back to Nancy with his tail between his legs to weep and wail and ask why she hath forsaken him all over again.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on August 31, 2019, 02:07:09 PM
Quote from: Team player on August 31, 2019, 01:33:15 PM
I bet you would.
...and it reappears. Which means it must have notifications turned on for its own threads, but otherwise isn't interested in this forum. How... narcissistic.
Narcissism...I wonder if I can work with that. This might be an interesting experiment.
No, I don't know how to do that and don't have the patience to figure it out. I've been lurking the whole time, been mostly reading threads in Aneristic whatever it's called, but just didn't come up with anything smart to say so I just read.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 31, 2019, 02:35:52 PM
So he comes back here and we send him back to Nancy with his tail between his legs to weep and wail and ask why she hath forsaken him all over again.
Dude, I've been threatened with death in the middle of a state legislature, people have called my office (despite my office line not actually being published) and threatened.
With respect, I'm a big boy and can handle this forum.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 30, 2019, 06:28:30 PM
I would be amused by what RWHN things about the vaping "epidemic" screeching that is now in vogue.
But anyway here is my answer: the screeching is because of a cluster of hospitalizations related to vaping. The CDC is investigating them all to see if there are common links. The only thing for sure that is common is vaping was involved in all cases, but initial reports are there wasn't a common product or chemical being vaped in these cases. So I'm waiting for more information.
But at a minimum, vaping isn't safe guys. Don't let Altria try to fool you into thinking otherwise. They know things they aren't telling you. If you vape, yeah, it's probably some degree safer than a traditional cigarette. But it's probably safer like jumping off the third floor is safer than jumping off the fifth.
So concerned about the uneducated and vulnerable masses that need guidance, what a hero, risking his life legislating
I'm not a legislator. Until just recently I've been barred from partisan office because of the Hatch Act. I am contemplating a run in 2020 or 2022, but who knows.
I am a pretty active public health advocate, but the incident I referred to above was after a press conference at the state house where I spoke about the need for strict regulations after legalization passed in my state. Someone wasn't happy with me I guess.
I do this because I care.
Verbot macht frei :lulz:
I'm pretty sure he does it because that suit fit so badly it periodically cuts off blood to the brain.
Quote from: Team player on August 31, 2019, 03:48:19 PM
Dude, I've been threatened with death in the middle of a state legislature,
But that was a long time ago, and it doesn't matter any more.
And here, it never mattered at all. Even if you had skin as thick as a rhinoceros, and could withstand all manner of personal abuse, it matters not when your ideas are as rotted wood, that splinters and crumbles at the slightest touch.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on September 01, 2019, 01:57:29 AM
Quote from: Team player on August 31, 2019, 03:48:19 PM
Dude, I've been threatened with death in the middle of a state legislature,
But that was a long time ago, and it doesn't matter any more.
And here, it never mattered at all. Even if you had skin as thick as a rhinoceros, and could withstand all manner of personal abuse, it matters not when your ideas are as rotted wood, that splinters and crumbles at the slightest touch.
He will not be able to respond. Technically, he was permabanned here for banning PD members from a page he adminned on Google, under the quid pro quo rule.
Nobody could be arsed to reban him this time (this is like the 9th time he has evaded the ban), until now.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 01, 2019, 02:27:56 AM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on September 01, 2019, 01:57:29 AM
Quote from: Team player on August 31, 2019, 03:48:19 PM
Dude, I've been threatened with death in the middle of a state legislature,
But that was a long time ago, and it doesn't matter any more.
And here, it never mattered at all. Even if you had skin as thick as a rhinoceros, and could withstand all manner of personal abuse, it matters not when your ideas are as rotted wood, that splinters and crumbles at the slightest touch.
He will not be able to respond. Technically, he was permabanned here for banning PD members from a page he adminned on Google, under the quid pro quo rule.
Nobody could be arsed to reban him this time (this is like the 9th time he has evaded the ban), until now.
Meh. I wasn't expecting much from him anyway.
But I reserve the right to auto-plagiarize the "rotted wood" bit. No point letting it go to waste.
The repressive state apparatus of PD has deprived me of my RWHN easy fix dosage, now i will have to obtain it in the black market :argh!:
No but really, hes such a tool that its like talking to a brick wall, im glad hes gone
Quote from: The Johnny on September 01, 2019, 04:05:07 AM
The repressive state apparatus of PD has deprived me of my RWHN easy fix dosage, now i will have to obtain it in the black market :argh!:
And now we will never reach ten pages of drugs. We are past our prime, PD. A moment of silence, please.
Not THAT much silence, I don't know if we could survive it.
Quote from: The Johnny on September 01, 2019, 04:05:07 AM
The repressive state apparatus of PD has deprived me of my RWHN easy fix dosage, now i will have to obtain it in the black market :argh!:
No but really, hes such a tool that its like talking to a brick wall, im glad hes gone
He'll be back.
Ugh. He makes me want to do drugs more often out of spite.
i've seen worthless trolls become valuable and insightful contributing members of the community before, but this is one of those rare and magical moments where the chi flows in the other direction
Quote from: tyrannosaurus vex on September 06, 2019, 10:21:42 PM
i've seen worthless trolls become valuable and insightful contributing members of the community before, but this is one of those rare and magical moments where the chi flows in the other direction
Law of equivalent exchange :lulz:
So like
What if
*massive bong rip*
I
*coughing followed by slightly smaller bong rip*
OH FUCK
HANDS
*harder coughing and in the distant muffled insults about not being able to handle his shit and stop bogarting*
DRUGS ARE BAD!!!!!!!!!