Posts by Abaddon

137

Who thinks Cannabis/Marihuana should be legalised?

by lfcviking in

jw
friends

i 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 in

jw
friends

i 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 in

jw
friends

i 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 in

jw
friends

i 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 in

least 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 in

brain 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 in

jw
friends

i 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.

97

Mr. Flipper's Son Hears and Sees Bigfoot- I'm Serious, Not Joking

by flipper in

jw
friends

i 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

ABADDON- In all due respect, I agree with you on the fact that there have been some people, maybe more than a few who have pulled hoaxes and put on fake monkey suits. That's common knowledge. You aren't telling me something I don't know. That being said, there are thousands of substantiated reports

Define substanciated; I think you mean, you can ring 'em up and they'll say "yup, that's right, I saw him". That means nothing. I could claim that of people who saw angels; that their claims were substanciated as I'd be able to produce someone who had ade the claim.

But, unless there is hard evidence, even if I have the person who saw 'it' telling me so in all sincerity, if they are claiming something extraordinary (seeing Jesus, angels, spooks, aliens, bigfoot etc.), it is more likely that they are mad, malevolent or mistaken than they saw what they thought they saw.

And yes there were some large bones found on an island near the great lakes in the last few years, and they were researching them to see what they might be.

Sorry Flip, this is just another vauge unsubstanciated claim. If you really want to have such claims taken seriously then the least you coud do is go to the trouble of supporting your own argument; these bones; where, who, when? Why shoud I go to the effort of researching your vauge claims if you can;t be bothered yourself? ARe ybou going to make it my fault you can;t back up your claims? That is (traditionally) the next stage in this sort of discussion.

And as you say people have seen spirits, ghosts, aliens, ufo's, and how do we know for sure people have not seen some of these things? We don't.

And your default setting for extraordinary claims is 'believe', and mine is 'disbelieve'. And I think given your life experienece you being so damn trusting is remarkable and naieve, massively so.

You know people can believe stuff to the point they experience things that are not there, or claim as such. Yet you show no sign of using this knoiwledge in your everyday life.

Are you really so insecure Abaddon, that it rocks your world so much, and disturbs your inner peace so much that you have to lash out verbally in a aggressive way towards people who have experienced something you never have ?

Ah, I knew it would be my fault. LOL. You make an extraordinary claim and provide no hard evidenece. Despite the absence of evidence being your (or your son's) 'fault', you blame me for lack of effort/luck in proving what you so obviously desperately me want to accept with admiring cries and open-mouthed credulity.

Sorry, no chance. If you can't prove something you believe to a reasonable level of certainty in it is your responsibility if people point this out and doubt you. It's about time you realise that.

Don't blame me for your poor standards of evidence.

There are people who swear up and down that only one person killed president Kennedy. There are others who think differently outside the box, that 2 or 3 others were in on it too.

See my last new topic about how and why people go on believing myths. The latest ballistical analyses put together from 3D models of the Plaza confirm there was only one gunman and explain what previous erroneous analysis claimed was a bullet that turned a corner (and ths spawned the two gunman theories). When there is clear unambiguous evidence supporting an official version of an event it is not closed minded to aeccept the official version. It is closed minded to carry on believing discredited theories. Thinking differently in the JFK case is nowadays a case of thinking poorly and accepting rubbish discredited years ago. Big it up as 'thinking out the boxt; lack of vidence an poor science is only lack of evidence and poor sceince, not thinking out the box.

At this point, 40 something years removed from it, who cares ?

I care about whether something happened or noth quite a lot.

It won't bring him back. Hey, I'm saying let people have their theories , it might be proven true with hard evidence , maybe sooner than later. May I ask how that affects the serenity of your own life Abaddon. I don't think it does.

They can have their theories; theories have some form of evdenmce and credibility. But treating conspiracy hypothesis, urban myths and supersticion with respect is something I could never do and I am amazed you'd even ask. We all come from an environment where we all failed in exercising critical thinking. If someone wants to exercise their freedom continuing to do so they can, but I will exercise my freedom in pointing this out.

I'm quite happy for people to peddle nonsense, but I don't know why they object to having their claims labelled as such or why they blame other people when they are not able to make their claims believable (apart from to other believers who als o have no evidence).

One of the posters who saw this animal private mailed me and said, " I wish some of the people who are doubting this is real would have been with me when I saw this animal. They would have $hit their pants. " So, would you like to take a trip with the person and see it soon? Hey, it was his words, not mine. So, you have your take and you are certainly welcome to that, but let others have their takes too. Peace to you, Mr. Flipper

LOL. Funny, if it were so easy to prove Bigfoot it would have been proved. The idea someone could prove Bigfoot by taking me on a walk in the woods is just so absurd and you suggesting it shows how poorly you analyse the reality of such claims.

Yup, obviously those dumb scientists just need to go for a walk in the woods...

97

Mr. Flipper's Son Hears and Sees Bigfoot- I'm Serious, Not Joking

by flipper in

jw
friends

i 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

I stand corrected!

Clear unequivocal evidence.

51

What exactly was the point on animal sacrifices

by jwfacts in

the jews were required to sacrifice and report to the high priest for forgiveness of sins.

but what was the benefit?

the jews get the same ressurection as everyone else.

Abaddon

They meant that the Priests were kept in food in return for their "services".