Sorry Gregor, wrong end of stick, my fault.
I'm not quite ready to set myself on fire in front of the state capitol.
Pssst... it's the spliff you "Catch a fire" to
Couldn't help the Marley reference, it seemed "appropriate".
Abaddon
JoinedPosts by Abaddon
-
137
Who thinks Cannabis/Marihuana should be legalised?
by lfcviking ini think in most countries it is illegal to use this drug, so do you think it should be decriminalised, legalised & taxed, made legal for the medical proffesion or should it remain completely illegal?
please state your reasons for your choice.. lfcv.
-
-
Abaddon
-
137
Who thinks Cannabis/Marihuana should be legalised?
by lfcviking ini think in most countries it is illegal to use this drug, so do you think it should be decriminalised, legalised & taxed, made legal for the medical proffesion or should it remain completely illegal?
please state your reasons for your choice.. lfcv.
-
-
Abaddon
bbdodger
I don't know what you were trying to prove with your little outburst(s), but I don't think you proved what you think you did.
Don't worry, I'll try to keep it simple next time I'm dumb/stoned enough to reply to you so you don't have to use spurious and fallacious excuses for your inability to defend your political views from criticism.
Oh and That Volcano device, dude... that's just gross.
I know I will probably get some sorry ass response if any - maybe you not replying this time will be because I ate your homework, or something else fallacious that absolves you of personal responsibility for your opinions - but how can that be 'gross'?
It's cleaner, healthier, more efficient.
Maybe personal dislike is clouding your intellect? Facts don't matter and getting your boot in does?
My my, maybe you can guest for Rush when he's on holiday...
-
90
should prostitution be legalized?
by John Doe inthink of all the unprotected prostitutes in the world.
if their profession were legalized, they might have access to retirement plans, medical insurance, regular health exams that would protect not only the girl but the client also.
courts and society have traditionally held the body as something sacred that should not be sold, but are people not selling their bodies when they make pornos or pose for pictures or make movies or any such things?
-
-
Abaddon
I think the question is wrong.
What I would ask is;
"How in a free society can it be possible to outlaw an adult man or woman accepting payment from another for a sexual service?"
Whether or not you consider sex to be a a special category of service is not material; it's not YOUR body, it's THEIR body, see various definitions of the word 'free' if confused.
yknot
Would you want your daughter's husband to be indulging in this "service"
Restricting the freedom of a man or woman to sell sexual services will not make you daughter's husband faithful. Most infidelity takes place free-of-charge. Irrelevant question.
Would you like finding your Dad (still married to your mum, who would be devastated) coming out of Whorehouse that you are walking in?
Restricting the freedom of a man or woman to sell sexual services will not make your father faithful. Most infidelity takes place free-of-charge. Irrelevant question.
What about your brother-in-law?
See above, see the pattern?
Your clergy after dressing all down about immorality
So utterly irrelevant I can't understand how you even typed it. You do not have to use prostitutes or like the fact there are prostitutes; you have no right to impose your beliefs on others.
Or how about walking in and finding your Wife, Daughter, Sister, Mom, or Grandma turning big $$$ doing tricks?
Restricting the freedom of a man or woman to sell sexual services will not make your Wife, Mom, or Grandma faithful. Restricting the freedom of a man or woman to sell sexual sevices will not make your daughter or sister (or son or brother) celibate. Irrelevant question.
Would making it legal ruin any lives less?
Prostitution doesn't ruin lives; what leads up to a forced decision (forced by personal financial need not by other people) to enter prostitution might be a ruined life.
I don't hear one word about action to reduce that situation.
Gill
No. Because women are not 'things' to be used and neither are men.
What if the man or woman wants to? Why should you tell them what to do with their life or bodies if what they do does not intrinsically harm another?
What about men or women who like submitting sexually to the desire of another in a consensual power-exchange relationship for free? Will you restrict their freedom on the grounds you might not like it? Why does the exchange of money make it different?
Imagine how abhorrent we all find the FACT that people in Thailand think nothing of selling their daughters to brothels.
SELLING their normally UNDERAGE daughter; two crimes before you even get to consider whether prostitution is a crime, and slavery and sexual exploitation of children are nothing to do with prostitution as prostitution need involve neither slavery or the sexual exploitation of children.
When you have a comparison that is a comparison to someone entering prostitution because it's better money and hours than McDonald's or WAL-MART, by all means tell me.
Imagine their lives wrecked. And this is legal.
Do not talk rot; slavery and sexual exploitation of children is not legal. Not in Thailand either.
Even if it isn't legal, no one can stop it.
Don't be defeatist. 150 years ago a similar fate waited some children in London or New York. Do some research on the late 19th C movement to reduce the age of consent; it was caused by rife child prostitution.
Social change meant this changed. Seems you are in favour of social change but confuse that with being against prostitution.
Now imagine all those little girls you see playing in the school yard.
What job do you want to do, Jenny when you grow up?
Well, I don't particularly like the idea the little Johnys and Jennys might also end up fighting an extraterritorial war to secure oil supplies, but some may out of choice and that is their choice.
So Jenny, who could have been a great nurse, doctor, teacher, librarian, accountant, artist, becomes a 'thing' instead of a person.
Again, a bad example; people who become prostitutes generally do not have any realistic prospect of becoming a nurse, doctor, teacher, librarian, accountant, artist etc..
Maybe rather than restricting personal freedom to suit your own opinion it might be better to support actions that will mean more people have a chance of a rewarding career and choose that instead of prostitution?
There would be outrage if people suggested selling off their sons as prostitutes, but hey! Girls and women don't really count, do they?
You obviously feel strongly about this, so strongly you ignore what you speak of does happen. so strongly you ignore by your choice of pronoun the fact many males are prostitutes. Seems you might have some sexual bias you need to correct
Should prostitution become legal, a woman who became unemployed would be forced by the state into prostitution.
Will never happen in any society that values personal freedoms. A person might be OFFERED employment as a whore if it is a legal job and there are vacancies, but forced to do it? That's called rape, and I don't think even the most draconian welfare system will be authorised in law to force people to be raped. I understand you feel strongly but please try to use reasoable examples.
Would a man be forced into prostitution in the same position?
Again, the main sex bias I see here is on your part.
So, degrading people
Your opinion again.
Prostitutes are victims.
They are either victims of abuse from childhood, victims of poor education, or victims of drug addiction and worse, trafficked and enslaved.
You are talking about social conditions that should be targeted even if they didn't contribute to people entering prostitution. Someone can be a prostitute wiothout any of those social factors causing it.
Men need to ask if they want to go down the road where there wife, daughter, sister, mother should become an object of 'itch scratching' for some other bloke.
I thought the attitude expressed in the 'Lady Chatterly's Lover' trail in the UK in the early sixties was dead. In it the Barrister for the prosecution asked the jury if they would be happy if their wife or servants read it. Apparently wives and servants need men to decide what they can read... or at least this is what the Barrister for the prosecution thought.
Some women need to ask if it is right a man be allowed to treat women in his family like they were possessions. A man is treating his adult children like possessions if he either forces them into prostitution or prevents them becoming a prostitute when they do so out of a free choice. If his wife is a hooker, well, that might reasoably seen as breaking marriage vows so is just different.
Then, men need to ask, do they want their little son to be a prostitute to satisfy a man's lust.
Again, you confuse breaking the law (underage sex) with consensual sex between adults for money.
Men need to ask, do they want their own asses rented out, after all, it could be legal.
You are confusing rape and consensual sex again.
Then, we might get a good result on whether society really does want to go down the road of legalising prostitution.
Perhaps all the guys out there happily 'using' prostitutes need to ask themselves, 'if there is a next life, what if I come back as this poor young girl that I'm using right now?'
Well, if I were such a man I'd hope the social reforms I voted for would minimise the chances of people being forced to enter prostituion so if I did end up as a whore in my next life it was a free choice, and one which people didn't condemn me for morally.
With greatest respect, but, no one in their, and this is the important point, no one in their right mind would choose to be a prostitute.
With greatest respect you need to separate fact from your opinion.
It is a 'profession' brought on by desperation or enslavement.
This is the case far too often, but that means you need to sort out the social conditions that mean people are forced into prostitution by desperation or enslavement.
Restricting the freedom of someone to sell their own body is not a solution to the social issues that force people into prostitution.
Prostitutes are 'forced' to make themselves look attractive, smile, appear content and happy with what they are doing, otherwise they are less likely, thought not necessarily unlikely, to find a client.
Butchers are 'forced' to be clean, smile, appear content and happy with what they are doing, otherwise they are less likely, thought not necessarily unlikely, to find a client. Yup, being in a job where you have face to face contact with other people means surliness and smelling nasty are a bad idea.
You talk of personal dignity; where is personal dignity in a job for an inadequate minimum wage cleaning floors or toilets? Where is the personal dignity being treated like an expendible resource in the McJob sector?
Who is the 'better' mother, one who is a whore for two nights a week and cares for her pre-school children the rest of the time, or one who works sixty hours in three different jobs to bring home less money and barely sees her children?
We do not need to ban prostitution. We need to change society so that our fears that prostitutes are exploited and lack choice are unfounded.
Remembering always, if we don't want it to happen to ourselves, why would we allow it to happen to someone else.
Precisely; if I wanted to be a whore I would want it to be a genuine choice and one that I was not prevented from pursuing by people taking away my right to do with my body as I see fit.
As has been brought out, if you want to remove the financial incentive for sex you will be interfering in a lot of relationships and criminalising a lot of people. Obviously not all relationships are like that, but what will you do in your crusade to stop women who use sex to get money off their partner? Is it okay for a woman to exploit one man continuously for money but not okay for a woman to exploit many men serially for money? If so, why?
Likewise, if someone can be proud to be a skilled masseur capable of making people feel relaxed and giving them pleasure, and is happy to say this to someone they meet, why does doing the same with sex instead of a massage condemn one?
Or do we still internally subscribe to the myth that sex is bad and unless someone does it the same as us they are wicked?
-
137
Who thinks Cannabis/Marihuana should be legalised?
by lfcviking ini think in most countries it is illegal to use this drug, so do you think it should be decriminalised, legalised & taxed, made legal for the medical proffesion or should it remain completely illegal?
please state your reasons for your choice.. lfcv.
-
-
Abaddon
John Doe
I tried pot once a long time ago, and it did absolutely nothing for me. I honestly don't understand the fascination.
Ah, you should run for President.
Our bad, we must be imaginging things, or... maybe u weren't doin it rite?
This is the same guy that scared the crap out of me by sticking a shot gun in his mouth and acted like he was going to pull the trigger--not fond memories.
Strange choice of someone to initiate you in smoking pot; decent drug educatioon would inform you that you should try drugs for the first time in the presense of someone you trust who is experienced in using the drug and who will keep an eye on you.
I did that when I was 17, and you know what, I've felt incredibly guilty for it ever since.
What a waste of effort! How many babies did you eat when you smoked pot? What universes did you destroy? Rob any banks? Nah, you inhaled burning leaves; you are obviously a low person of no worth.
I hope you can apprteciate I am teasing you gently; you have no reason to feel guilty for pot.
The main thing I've seen is that stoners don't seem to have motivation and are lethargic acting. That might be ok for some stations in life, but it certainly isn't desirable for most of them.
Alcoholics and stoners have problems. I run the accounts of my companies two largest clients and am responsible for $5m of business a year. I know you are not saying that all pot smokers are stoners. Problem is much of drug education misinforms and seeks to scare with hyperbole. Then the good stuff that gets taught gets rejected when people find out that much of the hyperbole in drug education is just that - hyperbole - and that most pot smokers have steady jobs or good grades. They tend to then regard the good stuff in drug education as being as accurate as the hyperbole - I did research on this at Uni'.
Gregor
We all must use common sense in a world where grass IS illegal regardless of how we personally feel about it.
Okay, so where does the American love of freedom come in? All of a sudden you are kow-towing to an oppresive, unneccesary, damaging law. Why do American's stand up against seat-belt, drunk-driver check-points and motorcycle helmets (at least in some states) and passively accept dumb laws (not that the examples I've given are dumb laws, thus an even greater contrast) in others
I suppose back in the day it was okay that homosexuals had to "use common sense in a world where" homosexuality WAS "illegal regardless of how" they "personally" felt "about it". Or was it wrong that a stupid oppresive, unneccesary, damaging law was in place?
Twitch
That's to say little or no crime is ever committed by people under the influence of alcohol?
Puhleeze.
No one said that. In fact a drunk person is a greater risk to soceity than a stoned one as many drunk people become violently aggressive.
What you are misrepresenting is that very few people rob houses or mug people to finance alcoholism, as the risk of breaking the law is too great compared to the low cost of getting drunk.
Illegal drugs are artifcially expensive, and thus make the risk of crime to finance a habit worthwhile to those who are suffering addiction. If it took a few dollars a day to feed ones habit even the worst junkie would be unlikely to commit crime to feed their habit.
Here's a photo of my new toy for all you smokers stuck in the stoned age;
http://shop.grasscity.com/shop/grasscity/vapormed.html
Yes, it is silly to sit there sucking out of a balloon, but the quality of the high is like nothing else, no 'baccy, clean taste, much reduced tar and carcinogen level.
-
137
Who thinks Cannabis/Marihuana should be legalised?
by lfcviking ini think in most countries it is illegal to use this drug, so do you think it should be decriminalised, legalised & taxed, made legal for the medical proffesion or should it remain completely illegal?
please state your reasons for your choice.. lfcv.
-
-
Abaddon
I live in the Netherlands, although I'm English. I smoke pot regulary. I just quit tobacco and have a 'Volcano' Vapouriser that works like a dream. Mmmm. Yes. Fingers, keyboard, screen, where was I?
I'm not here 'cause it is 'legal'; I smoked regulary in the UK.
Dutch drug policy is based on a harm reduction policy.
Most pot users do not harm others in acquiring or using the drug; acquisition and consumption are victimless crimes.
Prohibition does not work; people will still consume recreational chemicals regardless of law.
All Prohibition does is make the supply of pot a lucrative job with the resultent potential for violence.
If the price of pot is high, users of pot might to resort to crime to pay for their drugs.
If pot is available easily and cheaply in quasi-legal coffee shops no criminal underworld is created, and people can buy their weed and not be criminalised for a victimless crime. You will also not encounter harder drugs in a coffee shop; at many dealers you will encounter harder drugs.
I pay €6-€8 per gram, that's $8.40 to $11.20 (don't blame me for the dollar exchange, it's cheap) depending what variety I feel like.
BrentR
One of them is morphine which costs .89 cents for a 10mg ampule. Two ampules would take care of the most hardcore drug addicts. Who could not afford a $1.78 a day habbit? Medical grade cocaine is also very cheap and much safer to use.
Oh I'm for providing licensed channels for obtaining drugs at prices that destroy the local drug trade overnight. Maybe you could have coffee shops just for pot and opium dens for other stuff?
Obviously some idiots will suffer harm from abusing recreational chemicals just because they are there. But all the evidence points to it not being many. In Holland the % of teenagers AND adults who smoke pot regulary is no higher and is sometimes lower than countries where it is iilegal. All the research shows drug abuse is a result of internal factors, not because the drug was available.
If illegality of a chemical creates violence, criminalises people who commit a victimless crime, wastes police time on preventing a victimless crime, etc. etc., why is it illegal.
If illegality does more harm than good (as can be demonstrated), have done with it.
Controlled supply would not lead to a massive increase in addiction, would cost far less then Prohibition, and would eliminate crime between suppliers and by users to finance their habits.
lfcviking
Its interesting that most of you are in favour of its decriminalisation/legalisation and claiming that its relatively harmless when there are growing reports of this substance having adverse affects on its users. Where i used to live (England) reports of people (that were regular users of this drug) developing psychological disorders were becoming more and more common. You would hear of long term users suffering from 'Psychosis', 'Paranoia', 'Nearvous Anxiety' etc etc. Also as of fairly recently the very strong 'Skunk' form of the drug has become more easily available, so surely there has to be a connection here?
Be careful of claims pot is on average any stronger to some damaging degree. They are not well-backed.
Just as some alcohol users will suffer problems from using alcohol, so too will some pot users. There is a link to certain conditions; a causal link prehaps (it might just be that people with certain conditions seek out certain substances to self-medicate).
Smoking heavily in your teens is a bad idea. But the overall risk is very small; there are millions of people who have smoked pot every day for decades and only a relatively low percentage suffer real chronic harm from usage - probably the same percentage as that of alcohol drinkers who suffer real chronic lasting harm. Given the study done and some quite spriited attempts to find something really bad by anti-drugs lobbies, nothing really bad has been found beyond 'inhaling burning leaves is kinda dumb'.
And I now vapourise my weed, I don't burn it... ah, isn't technology a wonderful thing?
John Doe
That's circular argumentation. In effect, you're saying that marijuana should be legal because people are in jail for smoking it. Saying that pot smokers are not "true criminals" is saying they haven't been convicted of breaking the law, which is absurd.
It is a victimless crime; if someone is harmed in the financing, supply or safe consumption of a recreational chemical it is because the drug was illegal.
If recreational chemicals were as expensive as good quality tea, do you think people would die in drive-bys over the right to supply Liptons to the three blocks south of 67th and Main?
-
19
Body Modification...
by bbdodger ini love to login to myspace and see if i can find some ex-jws, or active jws from (my) cong., or ones that i knew from other congs.. i came across a profile of someone i knew, who was in the same congregation.
her name isn't particularly common, and there is a resemblance, so i think it's most likely the girl who i went to kh with.. she says she's "atheist", and has a tattoos on her face, piercings, and her profile is decorated with naked women.
gads!
-
-
Abaddon
Oh lord, for a country that with the UK started punk, for decades now American 'punk' has been nothing of the sort.
I lived a mile away from the Kings Road in Chelsea in 1977 and waited for my bus to school outside BOY, so although never 'A' punk I saw it happen (in my 'hood, LOL).
Nowadays punk is clean antiseptic overproduced establishment image obsessed product - rebellion-lite for disaffected teenagers who don't grok that rebellion by numbers is not, by any sane definition rebellion, but who are looking for a genre of music that is 'edgy' (tear of laughter at idea of Green Day or their ilk being 'edgy') and that is loud and different enough to piss their parents off and appear cool to their friends and make them feel like they're different and can laugh at people who like boy bands.
Dutch punks are equally clueless. Cleanest punks I've ever friggin' seen. I think their mums iron their outfits. I was hanging round a train station here years back before I lived here; I had to wait two h;ours for the first train after getting dropped off by a coach. I met three Dutch punks. I had a guitar. We had a jam. They asked me not to sing too loudly so as not to annoy others (nothing to do with my singing honest ;-).
Having said that I quite like some Green Day/RATM etc. songs. But then I like some U2 songs even if I think they're a bunch of twats.
One day the call centre I work for will have 'Killing in the Name Of' or 'Bombtrack' as its hold music. Now that would be 'punk' LOL.
-
19
Body Modification...
by bbdodger ini love to login to myspace and see if i can find some ex-jws, or active jws from (my) cong., or ones that i knew from other congs.. i came across a profile of someone i knew, who was in the same congregation.
her name isn't particularly common, and there is a resemblance, so i think it's most likely the girl who i went to kh with.. she says she's "atheist", and has a tattoos on her face, piercings, and her profile is decorated with naked women.
gads!
-
-
Abaddon
Ah, I did the sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll exit course, with a course in BM.
The BM stopped at navel and tragus, and the tragus had to go because of work. I was thinking of a full set of wings as a back tattoo, but don't see it happening now. Still got my navel ring after 14 years.
But I am kinky and smoke pot, although I've not picked up a guitar in a year, more's the pity.
-
14
LEAST RELIGIOUS COUNTRIES
by sspo inleast religious countriesposted aug 23rd 2007 12:15pm by iva skoch.
when you travel to europe, don't be surprised to find that many europeans don't believe in god.
i have even witnessed some alcohol-infused conversations between americans and europeans that almost ended in fistfights over his/her existence.
-
-
Abaddon
Overly liberal?
Yes, it's terrible; high levels of equality, low levels of poverty, high educational attainment, relaxed attitude towards nudity and sex, highly representative democracy, generous welfare, free heath care, massive levels of maternal and paternal maternity leave...
... those poor Scandinavians, trapped in an overly liberal hell.
greendawn, you get the Daily Mail writers award
-
32
Brain Damage Plagues Thousands of GIs
by freyd inbrain damage plagues thousands of gis by marilynn marchione,ap posted: 2007-09-10 06:58:55 filed under: health news, iraq news, world news http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_a/brain-damage-plagues-thousands-of-gis/ 20070909172009990001?ncid=nws00010000000001
nashville, tenn. (sept. 9) - the war in iraq is not over, but one legacy is already here in this city and others across america: a "silent epidemic" of brain-damaged soldiers.
thousands of troops have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, or tbi.
-
-
Abaddon
emy the infidel
That article doesn't bash the troops.
Why do you choose to misrepresent it as such? Did you misunderstand it, or did you not read it and made a false assumption? Or were you deliberately lying?
Also, consitency is all very well, but relevancy is also a good idea.
Accidental deaths in the use of a nationwide transport system are not comparable to deaths resulting from deliberate enemy activity in an extra-territorial combat zone.
As regards troops being indoctrinated, hell, the level of innaccuracy in American's (whether soldiers or not) beliefs about 9/11, Iraq, etc. is such that one either has to say American's are under-educated idiots (which I don't believe) or that there are people actively trying to mislead them. Known falsehoods are accepted as facts and if you are not careful about your media sources you can end up very misinformed (or ininformed) about contrary opinions to official policy.
Examples?
Despite deep public dissatisfaction with the Iraq war, the highly anticipated report by a bipartisan panel proposing new policy options for Iraq did not register strongly with most Americans. Only about half say they heard even a little about the report released last week by the Iraq Study Group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, while about as many (47%) say they heard nothing at all about the group's recommendations.
http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/members/issue.tmpl?articleid=12180619562530
Despite being widely reported in the media that the U.S. and other countries have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, surprisingly; more U.S. adults (50%) think that Iraq had such weapons when the U.S. invaded Iraq. This is an increase from 36 percent in February 2005.
Sixty-four percent say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (the same as 64% in February 2005).
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=684
So, on the basis of this, although anyone going into the line of fire might qualify as 'brave;, if they are a statistically representative American they are probably under one or more mis-conceptions about the reasons why they are there.
-
97
Mr. Flipper's Son Hears and Sees Bigfoot- I'm Serious, Not Joking
by flipper ini know i'm setting myself up here, but here it goes.
first of all if you want to crack funnies about this or jokes, that's perfectly cool, it's alright, i don't mind.
however this is a true story from what happened in may and my motive for writing about this is not just humor, but i want to see if anybody else has experienced what my son went through while being in the mountains or anywhere.
-
-
Abaddon
Flipper
Don't get your flukes in a twist.
You can debate with people all day long, and to me it's a waste of time.
What, you mean they don't agree with you? Yup, clearly a waste of time.
Why do you have to have me believe you to not think a debate is a waste of time?
I don't care if you don't agree with me but don't see debate as a waste of time if you carry on believing stuff that doesn't have one shred of poof.
I'd say debating something with someone who makes wild claims like "Bigfoot sightings have been substantiated by many researchers and scientists" (this is simply not true - there is no hard evidence of Bigfoot's existence) and doesn't bother to back up their statements with any references or evidence is a little dull, but I live in hope. I try not to assume the next thread where people make wild claims will not be full of people behaving like people normally behave when they make wild claims, and that instead of indignation and evasion I get considered and convincing responses, even if I still disagreed with them.
FreedomFrog
I find this interesting because this also goes the other way too. I asked my ex one time that if he experienced a supernatural experience would he then believe? He said no because he'd feel he was going "crazy" and he'd run off to a shrink and get his head examined. So really, people who don't believe, showing proof wouldn't really matter no matter how much evidence could be shown...there will always be a reason why it couldn't and wouldn't have happened even to the point of making the person out to be "crazy".
I disagree, but need to clarify why.
If I saw a ghost but was unable to prove it I would assume that as I know humans are poor observers and eye witnesses, I must be mistaken or mad.
On the other hand if I had hard evidence ghosts or Bigfoot or Nessie or the Tooth-fairy existed I would be mad for NOT believing in them.
It is proven humans are poor observers and eyewitnesses and can unconsciously synthesize experiences and memories. It is not proven that any sighting of a ghost was of anything other than a figment of the imagination.
I think assuming a subjective experience overrules the above objective facts is unfounded, unwise and possibly even arrogant.
To me it seems more likely that I am mad or mistaken than that a form of entity that people have made claims about for Milena and never proved suddenly becomes real because of my subjective experience.
I haven't had any experiences with Bigfoot but I have with supernatural which I will not go into because of too many critics.
*sigh* Because you don't feel comfortable doing something unless you have 100% agreement and validation? That's sad. I can have a discussion about evolution with naysayers and critics hanging off the rafters - their disbelief doesn't bother me because I have sound scientific arguments and reams of evidence supporting what I think happened.
Maybe that - sound scientific arguments and reams of evidence - is why I feel secure discussing a subject and is why you don't? As I've said above, 'believers' blaming the skeptics for not believing is a traditional part of these discussions, as this thread proves again. Us skeptics are so bad and nasty the ghost-whisperers can't bear to even talk to us. Fortunately there are plenty of bulletin boards where such discussions would be accepted uncritically.
I just think it's interesting that even if a non-believer actually experienced stuff like this, they still wouldn't believe.
I think if you actually discuss this further with your partner you will find he would believe in ghosts if someone proved they existed. You'd also find until then he will not believe in them even if he has a 'ghost' experience, as he will not think his subjective and perhaps wholly internal experience defines external objective reality for exactly the same reason he believes others subjective possibly wholly internal experiences define subjective external reality.
But you seem to take comfort in a false characterisation of a skeptical viewpoint.