Not logged in [Login ]
 Sciencemadness Discussion Board » Non-chemistry » Detritus » Don't you love the smell of chlorinated compounds in the morning? Select A Forum Fundamentals   » Chemistry in General   » Organic Chemistry   » Reagents and Apparatus Acquisition   » Beginnings   » Responsible Practices   » Miscellaneous   » The Wiki Special topics   » Technochemistry   » Energetic Materials   » Biochemistry   » Radiochemistry   » Computational Models and Techniques   » Prepublication Non-chemistry   » Forum Matters   » Legal and Societal Issues   » Detritus   » Test Forum

Pages:  1    3
Author: Subject: Don't you love the smell of chlorinated compounds in the morning?
turd
International Hazard

Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

 Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti Speed dial: Clear your mind of every distraction, create complete silence, and you will hear God. God appears in the silence.

If you hear voices you should seek professional help.
In retrospect:
You don't understand chemistry in the slightest (the first post in this thread is a major facepalm moment and it just goes downhill from there).
You don't understand drugs in the slightest.
You have the world view of a 13 year old kid that isn't yet mature enough to question the silly beliefs indoctrinated by his family. (Which actually is no shame - you probably are that 13 year old immature kid.)

 Quote: What dealers cut drugs with is not my problem, but I've heard that some use powdered glass.

Gosh. You're so naïve and full of it! If you'd spend one minute thinking about it instead of regurgitating unreflected fairy tales, you would realize that cutting smack with something that doesn't dissolve in water is about the stupidest thing one can do. Newsflash: Dealers generally want their clients to buy more of the stuff, not kill them.

This thread should be locked to protect you from yourself: every post makes you look more foolish than the last (if that is even possible).
White Yeti
International Hazard

Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

 Quote: Originally posted by turd You have the world view of a 13 year old kid that isn't yet mature enough to question the silly beliefs indoctrinated by his family.

For your information, I was an atheist at one point, I have questioned the beliefs I have been exposed to for as long as I can remember. I know the mind of an atheist very well, because I WAS one. The fact that we, as human beings, are in constant search for a higher being is innate, and universal. Stating an absolute belief that "there is no God" goes against all scientific theory, at the centre of which there is uncertainty. God has revealed himself in many ways, and failing to accept his presence is a mortal sin, for which you will pay greatly if you do not change your views.

Let me ask you a question, as an atheist, where would you put the "zero" mark for counting years? And how would you agree with your atheist friends on one year?

 Quote: you would realize that cutting smack with something that doesn't dissolve in water is about the stupidest thing one can do.

Drug dealers are not the brightest people. The fact that they enter the business in the first place proves that they are pretty dull to begin with.

"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
unionised
International Hazard

Posts: 4599
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

"Let me ask you a question, as an atheist, where would you put the "zero" mark for counting years? And how would you agree with your atheist friends on one year?"
I'd probably call for a debate on the pros and cons of these then have a vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_(reference_date)#Notable_epoch_dates_in_computing
ziqquratu
National Hazard

Posts: 385
Registered: 15-11-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

 Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti I don't even think we need to go that far. Say tomorrow someone patents a cure for cancer. Let's be idealistic, no side effects and it applies to all kinds of cancer. You can only imagine the multibillion dollar market that will develop. Depending on where you live, insurance policy may be different, but if you live in the United States, only the rich can afford expensive life saving procedures. With this in mind, the poor usually do welding, are exposed to carbon monoxide from machinery and are more likely to develop cancer. Do you think they will receive the treatment they deserve? Of course not, insurance companies will cover the cheaper chemotherapy/radiotherapy alternative, and deny coverage on the new treatment. Once the technology matures, then maybe insurance will cover it

Fortunately, not all western countries have such byzantine arrangements for the funding of healthcare as does the US. Irrespective of that, however, insurance companies in the US do, in fact, fund the expensive treatments - they don't like it, and are always looking for a way out, but they DO fund it. And, to be fair, there are good reasons for restricting access to some of the more expensive, newer drugs - certainly, price limitations play a part, but often these things are better used as second- or third-line therapies, after older drugs have failed (to avoid the development of resistance, for example, or for treating already resistant illnesses).

 Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti Actually, the prohibition was not a complete failure. It may not have stopped the consumption of alcohol in the United States, but it changed people's attitudes about alcohol consumption, leading to a decline in popularity: http://edgeofthewest.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/prohibition...

Your graph seems to be missing a few decades of data... a short term decrease is not sufficient to justify the consequences of prohibition.

 Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti Government intervention is not all that futile. Thanks to the government, supply is held back and purity of drugs in decreasing (dealers cut the product more and more).

Rubbish. Look at it like this - police report seizing a multi-million dollar shipment of heroin. And yet, the street price of the drug is unaffected. This is evidence of the seizure having NO effect on the availability.

 Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti Whether we like it or not, drugs are here to stay.

This is the smartest thing you've said in the entire thread. And it applies to obesity, heart disease, cancer, AIDS, asthma, Alzheimers.... and just about all other diseases, too (with the possible exception of a few viral diseases - such as smallpox - which we're capable of eliminating). No matter what controls - what moralistic requirements - you put in place, these things are never going away.
ripple
Harmless

Posts: 19
Registered: 19-1-2012
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

So many really great debates on here get far too heated and ruined with personal attacks. We have this fairly unique hobby/interest and are fortunate enough to have a forum to share it with each other- it would be nice for that to be reflected in the tone and quality of discussion.

Its a very small pool, please stop pissing in it
White Yeti
International Hazard

Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

Thanks for pointing that out.

Different views on certain topics are almost always rejected initially, and I hoped (when I first signed up) that this forum would be accepting of different points of view. I'm afraid that many topics devolve into personal attacks for no definite reason other than the fact that some people are not willing to consider things from a different point of view. This lack of open mindedness is strange, because as a community of scientists (for the most part) you should always be open to new ideas and perspectives, if they are supported in some way or another by a logical train of thought (which I believe I articulated clearly enough for laymen to understand).

For the rest of you, personal attacks show that this community is not better than any other forum on the Internet; any group of fools can start hurling insults at one another. Granted, my original post was not perfect, far from it I might add, but you guys determined in which direction this thread was headed. Never had I though this thread would go anywhere near AIDS and oncology.

I still believe that diseases should be dealt with from the ground up. First we get rid of malaria, typhoid, tuberculosis and cholera (yes these diseases still exist). Once deaths from these diseases in developing countries are low enough to be acceptable by western standards, then we can tackle cancer, AIDS, genetic disorders etcetera…

"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
497
International Hazard

Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: HSbF6

I totally agree with ripple. No need for personal attacks. But how surprised can you really be when people react strongly to you showing up and posting posting stuff like this

 Quote: The war on drugs in another issue. The problem with drugs is that there are many different kinds and chemists are worsening the situation by making derivatives which are not "illegal" per se. This makes restriction and regulation a nightmare. Government intervention is not all that futile. Thanks to the government, supply is held back and purity of drugs in decreasing (dealers cut the product more and more).

And then you say everyone else is refusing to be open to new perspectives? Anyone even vaguely familiar with the black market will tell you just how effective government intervention is... But you would prefer to listen the prison gaurd's story instead? Find some real indepent evidence that prohibitions are so great for us. Data from after 1930.

How did Portugal's prohibition work out?

"If only we could figure out the right set of federal regulations, the mexican cartel wars would be solved!" That's just not how it works.

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/drug-prohibition-your-childre...

 Quote: The Mexican government reports that its War on Drugs has killed 28,000 people over the past four years. This ongoing tragedy is undermining Mexico's stability, which is bad news for the United States. But that's not the only way drug prohibition is hurting us. I urge you to watch this interview with Neill Franklin, the Executive Director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (under 9 minutes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzOHQdKRANA The video reveals that the Mexican drug cartels have expanded into 230 U.S. cities. Unsurprisingly, the overwhelming majority of police 911 calls are related to this illegal drug trade. And yet, as our police go from one drug-related 911 call to the next, most violent crimes go unsolved, including . . . * 60% of rapes * 73% of robberies * 88% of auto thefts * And 37% of murders Whereas, in 1963, before the War on Drugs, only 9% of murders went unsolved! Repealing drug prohibition would put an end to narcotics units and place more cops on the street to "do the work that is supposed to be done." But unsolved crime is not the only danger caused by the Drug War. Our children are particularly at risk . . . * Criminals don't ask for ID's to verify the age of their customers * This means that powerful drugs are more available to kids than cigarettes and alcohol * Criminals don't care about quality control, so the black market substances that lure our kids are more dangerous than they would be if prohibition didn't exist * And urban, African-American children are at special risk. They are heavily recruited to the drug trade because juvenile offenders get lesser sentences Whereas in Portugal, which legalized personal drug possession ten years ago . . . * There was a double-digit drop in drug use by school-age children * As well as a double-digit drop in AIDS cases * The stigma has been removed for people seeking treatment * And there is MORE MONEY for treatment Even so, President Obama still wants to increase funding for the War on Drugs! But the facts are clear. Drug prohibition doesn't work. Repeal the federal drug laws. Our communities will be safer and our children will be better off.

A few people out there are even starting to notice...
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4570-m...

This is a good way to illustrate the heart of the problem:

 Quote: People laugh when politicians talk about their drug use. The audience laughed during a 2003 CNN Democratic presidential primary debate when John Kerry, John Edwards and Howard Dean admitted smoking weed. Yet those same politicians oversee a cruel system that now stages SWAT raids on people’s homes more than 100 times a day. People die in these raids –some weren’t even the intended targets of the police. Neill Franklin once led such raids. The 33-year Maryland police veteran, now executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, locked up hundreds of people for drugs and felt good about it. “We really thought that these drugs made people evil,” he told me. But 10 years ago Franklin decided that drugs –even hard drugs –do much less harm to Americans than does the drug war. “Drugs can be –and are in many cases –problematic. But the policies that we have in place to prohibit their use are 10 times more problematic.” The raids helped change his mind. “We end up with kids being shot … search warrants being served on the wrong home, innocent people on the other side of the door thinking that they are protecting their home.” And the level of drug use remains about the same. Still, most Americans support the drug war. Paul Chabot, White House drug adviser to Presidents George W. Bush and Clinton, told me: “We should be kicking down more doors. … They’re kicking the door of somebody who’s a violent person.” Violent?People who get high are rarely violent. The violence occurs because when something’s illegal, it is sold only on the black market. And that causes crime. Drug dealers can’t just call the cops if someone tries to steal their supply. So they form gangs and arm themselves to the teeth. “We have the violence of these gangs competing for market share, and people get hurt,” said Franklin. Especially kids. Drug gangs constantly look for new recruits. “Some of these gangs have better recruitment programs than Fortune 500 companies. They know what to say to kids.” People think that if drugs were legal, there would be more recruiting of kids. Franklin says the opposite is true. “Prohibition causes that. We don’t have kids on the corner (saying), ‘Pssst, I got a fifth of Jack Daniel’s.’” Kids rarely peddle liquor, and there’s little violence around liquor sales because alcohol is legal. There was lots of violence before 1933, but that was because Prohibition forbade liquor sales. Prohibition gave us Al Capone. “Organized crime existed well before Prohibition,” Chabot replied. That’s true. But much less of it. The murder rate rose when alcohol was banned. It dropped when Prohibition was repealed. “If we were to do away with our drug laws … we know drug usage numbers will skyrocket,” Chabot said. But we don’t know that. It’s logical to assume that, were it not for drug prohibition, drug abuse would be rampant. But 10 years ago, Portugal decriminalized every drug –crack, heroin, you name it. The number of abusers actually declined. Joao Goulao, Portugal’s top drug official, said that before decriminalization “we had a huge problem with drug use … around 100,000 people hooked on heroin.” Then they started treating drug use more like a parking ticket. People caught with drugs get a slap on the wrist, sometimes a fine. Independent studies have found the number of people in Portugal who say they regularly do drugs stayed about the same. And the best news, said Goulao: “Addiction itself decreased a lot.” At first, police were skeptical of the law, but Joao Figueira, chief inspector of Lisbon’s drug unit, told me that decriminalization changed lots of minds. “The level of conflicts on the street are reduced. Drug-related robberies are reduced. And now the police are not the enemies of the consumers!” And teen drug use is down. All good news. But in America and in most of the world, the drug war continues, thousands are murdered, and in ghettos the police are enemies of the people. Governments should wake up and learn something from the Portuguese.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/on-pot-prohibition-and-portugal/

[Edited on 4-4-2012 by 497]

A word to the wise: NEUROFEEDBACK

http://citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/mg21228354.500-re...

"To expose a 15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business."
Buckminster Fuller

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
Albert Einstein
White Yeti
International Hazard

Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

 Quote: Originally posted by 497 Anyone even vaguely familiar with the black market will tell you just how effective government intervention is... But you would prefer to listen the prison gaurd's story instead? Find some real indepent evidence that prohibitions are so great for us. Data from after 1930. How did Portugal's prohibition work out?

Very well then, let me elaborate.

The drug war is mostly ineffective because it's focused on the wrong drugs and the wrong people. Instead of focusing attacks on hard drugs, the government is cracking down on all drugs when it should be focusing on crack, meth and (to a decreasing extent) heroin. The reason why echoes to the fundamental belief that the government should do everything in its power to protect public welfare and keep crime rates down to a minimum.

I have never heard of a pot head revert to bouts of violence to get his fix, some even say that cannabis calms people down to a certain extent. The same is not true of meth and crack. In my opinion, meth is the hardest drug of them all, it's the most addictive, it gives the user the highest and longest high of all drugs and it's also the one and only drug that seems to "possess" people into bouts of unjustified violence. In some ways, crack pales in comparison, but it's still a major cause of urban violence and crime. Another major cause of crime is poverty, but there's not much the government can do about that, hence why it didn't declare a war on poverty.

I put heroin in parentheses because its use is declining, instead, people are using prescription painkillers. This makes the drug war on this front impossible to fight because what is usually used as legitimate medicine is now used as a cleaner and purer alternative to heroin. The medicinal and therapeutical properties of certain drugs makes outlawing them an impossible feat, which is why the government should lift its nonsensical ban on shrooms, LSD, cannabis, DMT, ibogane and all the others I can't name off the top of my head.

So, a complete end to prohibition wouldn't be the best decision either. If you legalised meth and crack you would not be solving the problem, you'd make the black market and even larger and more dangerous market. Since the current situation is that enforcement is too spread out over all the drugs, a different approach should be adopted. The government should base their decisions on whether or not to outlaw a drug based on statistics on public violence that consumption of the drug brings with it. With this outlook, crackdown would theoretically be more focused on there it is needed rather than dispersed over every and any drug in existence. Organised crime over the distribution of cannabis would disappear. In that sense, we would already improve public safety by simply legalising cannabis.

[Edited on 4-4-2012 by White Yeti]

"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
Bot0nist
International Hazard

Posts: 1559
Registered: 15-2-2011
Location: Right behind you.
Member Is Offline

Mood: Streching my cotyledons.

Hate to say it, bit im with The Dark Lord Sauron on this one... Legalize all drugs and make the FREELY available to anyone (of age) that wants them, at the pharmaceutical companies expense (since they founded the mainstream use of many of these drugs at one time). Removing monetary value and lack of availability will reduce most, if not all drug related violence and crime. The governments role could then be purely focused on education, harm reduction, and treatment. A role they are much better suited too, IME

"fundamental belief that the government should do everything in its power to protect public"

But not to protect.me from myself. When the Pure Food and Drugs Act was passed this is not what was in mind. The G men have no more right to persecute me for the chemicals I intake than it does four the literature I read! Stupid Nanny State!

[Edited on 5-4-2012 by Bot0nist]

U.T.F.S.E. and learn the joys of autodidacticism!

Don't judge each day only by the harvest you reap, but also by the seeds you sow.
White Yeti
International Hazard

Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

 Quote: Originally posted by Bot0nist Legalize all drugs and make the FREELY available to anyone (of age)

That "of age" part is difficult to enforce, when youths want to get messed up, they will, and by any means necessary. There is an age restriction for the consumption of alcohol, it may be enforced, but is it always obeyed? The problem will only be magnified when you legalise hard drugs that go hand in hand with addiction and violence. If you give an age restriction to some drugs and provide a good reason, then people might follow it. The reason being that the brain is adversely affected by all drugs (especially psychedelics) and more profoundly so, when it is initially developing during the first 20 years of life.

There is no black and white when it comes to politics, but I think it's obvious that drugs like meth and crack should remain illegal.

"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
497
International Hazard

Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: HSbF6

Bot0nist has it right this time. The monetary value (sometimes combined with drug effects) is the only thing that results in violence. Drugs are sooo cheap to manufacture, the costs should never be an issue.

So, tell me how subjectively different amphetamine is from meth? It's pretty damn close based on all the people I've talked to. The route of administration makes a much bigger difference. So if these are such a scourge on us, why are there 5 million prescriptions for it, plus almost 10 million for methylphenidate as of 10 years ago..

Meth is not that different than any other drug. It's ability to keep you awake for many days does result in more rapid damage if heavily abused, but it is most definitely not on the same level as opiates in terms of addiction.

The point is, if you tell people they are incapable of using something responsibly, they won't use it responsibly. That's a fact. People only treat drugs like a big deal because society makes a big deal about them, and they're worth their weight in gold. You're trying to argue that demonic possession chemicals are the driving force behind the black market's destructive effects, while it is clearly economics.

The of age issue will plague us in many ways until a real "rite of passage" is used to delineate where childhood ends and adulthood begins. Treating it as huge taboo when kids experiment with drugs only increases their interest. There is ample evidence for that concept if you look at the way some Europeans treat alcohol vs the way Americans often treat it... The same applies to all drugs. 18 is such arbitrary bullshit, how can we expect anyone to act like an adult when we won't even allow them to, until years after they would have had a family just a few centuries ago.

And what about those wars? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

A word to the wise: NEUROFEEDBACK

http://citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/mg21228354.500-re...

"To expose a 15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business."
Buckminster Fuller

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
Albert Einstein
turd
International Hazard

Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

 Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti This lack of open mindedness is strange, because as a community of scientists (for the most part) you should always be open to new ideas and perspectives, if they are supported in some way or another by a logical train of thought (which I believe I articulated clearly enough for laymen to understand).

Nothing what you said in this thread (and mostly elsewhere) is even remotely based on scientific method. Science is not:

- There's invisible pink unicorns everywhere because you can't prove the opposite. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence)
- There's a life after death because it makes me feel better. (Wishful thinking, one of the biggest sins of a scientist)
- Repeating fairy tales without questioning them

Again and again, you show absolute ignorance on the topic of drugs (and physics and chemistry) and act if you were some kind of authority. You are too lazy to use Google for two minutes before spouting your nonsense. Otherwise, you would for example realize how ridiculous the claim "methamphetamine is the most addictive drug" is. No wonder people react with irritation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine

 Quote: Data from The Lancet suggests amphetamine is ranked the 8th most addictive and 6th most harmful of 20 popular recreational drugs.

The same for your religious tirades: There's no theologically of philosophically interesting content to them. It's like the caricature of religion filtered through the mind of an immature kid. If I were Christian I would be deeply embarrassed by the contemptuous, inhumane drivel you are posting. But there's hoping that you grow up one day.
White Yeti
International Hazard

Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

 Quote: Originally posted by 497 The route of administration makes a much bigger difference. So if these are such a scourge on us, why are there 5 million prescriptions for it, plus almost 10 million for methylphenidate as of 10 years ago.. [...]but it is most definitely not on the same level as opiates in terms of addiction.

I definitely agree that the method of administration is a huge factor, hence why you can abuse pills by simply injecting them. What was (somewhat) safe to begin with becomes a powerful narcotic when administered in a different fashion.

But I still think that amphetamines are just as, if not more addictive than opiates. Here's why, even though withdrawal from amphetamines is not as dangerous as opiate withdrawal, it lasts longer and is more severe than withdrawal from cocaine (wikipedia). Methamphetamine triggers the release of dopamine and you all know the rest, the reward cycle etc... The brain is depleted of dopamine for years after the user discontinues the use of meth. Think about how crumby an existence that would be and how strong the pull must be towards the drug. You're effectively depressed for the rest of your life and that can be changed if you take more meth.

Apparently, ibogaine can be used to treat opioid dependence and it can treat methamphetamine dependence as well, but the craving for the drug makes treatment very difficult because although the physical aspect of the dependence can be eliminated, the mental craving for the drug is not eliminated.

@turd, you might think I act like an immature kid, but you're the one hurling senseless insults, and you're the one acting like a fool. You know very well that personal attacks are not welcome on this forum.

"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
watson.fawkes
International Hazard

Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

 Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti [...] but you're the one hurling senseless insults
You must have no idea, then, how insulting you have already been in this thread:
 Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti [...] but sex was intended to strengthen the relationship between one man and one woman, not two men, not two women and not any number of each either.
Take your private metaphysical beliefs and keep them out of this science board. Asserting the universality of such beliefs is at best unseemly, and become insulting when you insist upon it, which you have, and particularly so when with even a fragment of thought you would have realized how many people disagree with you. Doubly so when this is not a general-topic discussion board, but one about science.
White Yeti
International Hazard

Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

"Asserting the universality of such beliefs is at best unseemly, and become insulting when you insist upon it."

Although what I said may be offensive to some, my comments are impersonal. You may choose to take my comments any way you like. If you choose to take offence, go right ahead, that's not my problem.

"with even a fragment of thought you would have realized how many people disagree with you. Doubly so when this is not a general-topic discussion board, but one about science."

Firstly, I don't care whether or not people agree with me. I don't judge myself based on what others think. This is a forum, what's the point of having a forum where everyone agrees on everything? There would be no discussion. This is already a very monochrome forum some of these threads are pathetic because everyone agrees on the same subject.

Secondly, yes my original post was flawed, but I was hoping for a reasonable, unheated discussion on scientific ground. The problem was that this topic overlapped into politics and society, something I didn't realise until the discussion started to degenerate. I even posted an apology to the moderators:

"I appologise to the moderators for having posted something so close to politics. I didn't realise it at the time. I still think this is a subject worthy of discussion, so long as it doesn't get out of hand."

[Edited on 4-5-2012 by White Yeti]

"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
watson.fawkes
International Hazard

Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

 Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti my comments are impersonal.
Doesn't matter. Still insulting.
White Yeti
International Hazard

Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

 Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes Doesn't matter. Still insulting.

It depends solely on your personal judgement, what one might find offensive, another might find in line. What homosexuals do is insulting and out of line, especially when they do it on front of the world, for everyone to see.

"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
Bot0nist
International Hazard

Posts: 1559
Registered: 15-2-2011
Location: Right behind you.
Member Is Offline

Mood: Streching my cotyledons.

Your a bigot and a homophobe, that is my impersonal opinion. Maybe you should spend some more time worrying about your own life, and stop trying to dictate others, you fascist! If gays make you so uncomfortable, then I guarantee that you have some issues with your own sexuality that needs attention...

Go beat your bible elsewhere! Dick.

 Quote: Originally posted by turd This thread should be locked to protect you from yourself: every post makes you look more foolish than the last (if that is even possible).

Too late...

EDIT: Just so you know where that came from, not that you deserve or care; My younger brother is a homosexual and has had to deal with people like you his whole life. It makes me sick. He is a much better and "moral" human being than you could ever pretend to be with all your self righteous rhetoric. WTF makes you think you have the right to tell others who to love or how to live there life?

*TheBot leaves this thread, along with any respect he had for Yeti, behind.

[Edited on 5-4-2012 by Bot0nist]

U.T.F.S.E. and learn the joys of autodidacticism!

Don't judge each day only by the harvest you reap, but also by the seeds you sow.
watson.fawkes
International Hazard

Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

 Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti What homosexuals do is insulting and out of line, especially when they do it on front of the world, for everyone to see.
You really don't think that overt homophobia, as you have well illustrated here for everyone to see, isn't insulting to homosexuals, even if you claim it's impersonal. Wow.

Just so that I'm clear, I entered in after you accused turd of being insulting. Hint: the parable of the mote and the beam is in Matthew 7.
497
International Hazard

Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: HSbF6

So can you or anyone else present any evidence at all that drugs even begin to approach alcohol in destructive effects? Why should we be pouring more and more money in to stopping people from gaining new perspectives (a proven result of some drugs, unlike alchol) while alcohol is treated in this way?

 Quote: Some might say there is a beneficial effect of the growing incidence of FAS: it's good for prison business. According to some research, as many as half of the young offenders appearing in court have FAS. (8) Besides having poor judgment and lack of impulse control, many persons with FAS are destined to become alcohol abusers, all of which makes them vulnerable to committing crimes. Alcohol alone is involved in seven times more violent crimes than all illegal substances combined. (9) Education and treatment is seven times more cost effective than arrest and incarceration for substance addiction, yet we continue to spend more tax dollars on prisons than treatment. (9) The Justice Department reports that the cost per prisoner per year is $13,500. (10) In the US, over two million people are now locked up. In Canada, the cost of FAS now exceeds that of that country's national debt. Bonnie Buxton, founder of FASworld based in Toronto, states, "Just caring for people now alive with fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects will cost us at least$600 billion, which is the approximate size of the national debt." (7)

http://www.acbr.com/fas/\$5Mbaby.htm

It is common for older individuals to have trouble accepting that the world is changing... Based on your drug knowledge base, I would guess you learned most of it at least 20-30 years ago. Things have changed, and are accelerating towards even more change. Deal with it.

A word to the wise: NEUROFEEDBACK

http://citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/mg21228354.500-re...