Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 78

Thread: American Juggalo - a short documentary

  1. #31
    I was talking to a highschool kid from california, he was telling me there, to be a jugalo means, that you listen to a certain type of music when you're with other juggalos, he gave me the example of ICP (insane clown posse), that being a juggalo is sort of a "fence sitter" or neutral ground as an alternative or something you can do in addition to joining a gang. So you can by in a gang like the Bloods or the Crypts, but also be a juggalo. Like a "gang" or "group" is the better word that accepts all other gangs/groups. This way you can still have a network of friends/support but you're neutral with all gangs.

    The way this kid came off when describing the environment is that you have to join something, and that juggalos are the most passive/neutral group. No gang really hates them or has beef with them as many members of each respective gang are also juggalos.

  2. #32
    I'd never heard the term Juggalo before this thread. But then, I also didn't know that wiggling one's fingers up in the air meant agreement, and wiggling one's fingers downward meant disagreement. I'm fairly "old" by this forum's definition of what's "young", but even my kids didn't know this stuff.

    Nessie, I didn't click on your link, and don't know what they were inhaling...but I can tell you if they were "poppers" (as we used to call them) it was displacing oxygen in the brain. Same kind of thing helium does. Same kind of thing "huffing" does. Different highs, different symptoms, but the same type of brain chemistry alterations, and all very dangerous.

  3. #33
    Doing some "reminiscing", and I realized the biggest Drug Dealers (in my life) were physicians, pharmacists, and nurses. Professional peers.

    Pure, liquid, surgical grade cocaine, meant someone could save micrograms otherwise "wasted" during surgery. IV morphine (or other controlled substances) could be "wasted" with a witness, meaning any busy nurse signing a form. Our narcotics carts used to be tightly controlled in ICU and CCU, requiring keys and double signatures. But there were always ways to pocket a few mcgs here or there. Those loading patient self-delivery pumps, and counting mechanical "waste" are the latest targets for narcotics abuse. It's sad, really. On so many levels.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Draco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    573
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    I don't like morons.
    You know, I'd really appreciate it if you refrained from the insults (unless you want me to return the affection).
    But either way, interesting to see that your attack had absolutely zero basis against my argument.

    The basic fact that you are using words like 'agree' or 'disagree' shows that you do not think people should be able to do what they like with their own bodies or with their own lives,
    Thanks for telling me what I think. But I'll say it again (and again if I have to), I've never ever said that people shouldn't be able to do what ever the hell they want with their own bodies. I've obviously stated my disapproval of their actions, yet I've never said something along the lines of "They shouldn't be allowed to do that", NEVER. So please stop twisting/misinterpreting my argument.

    You know what else I disagree with: business owners who turn away customers on grounds of their sexuality, religion, skin colour, gender, whatever. Where's the reasoning behind that? So going by your logic for the use of the word "disagree", what I'm really saying is "Business owners should not be allowed to turn away any customers." Please stop twisting what I'm saying. But if you still don't "get me" then I'll sum it up with a nice quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

    I also disagree with one of my friends who supports the carbon tax in Australia, so what now? Is it that what I'm really saying is: You're not allowed to voice your support for the carbon tax.

    the fact that you don't think the government should be enforcing it doesn't really change that. Lewkowski doesn't think the US government should enforce Christianity, this doesn't stop him being a Christian.
    Ok whatever.

    But you've still retained the idea that the only correct place for sex is in a monogamous relationship, even if you've ditched the attachment to the ceremony and the homophobia.
    For me it is, in a monogamous relationship. Homophobia though? That's funny, since I'm gay myself. It's not the first time someone's called me homophobic though.

    So, if you've "developed" it rather than pulled it out your ass, maybe you can explain the reasoning behind it?
    Because that's what I take to be a rational outlook on life. To live with integrity, self respect, morals, values, to be someone who upholds reason. Because that's what I've found makes me happy, and by "happy" I mean a long term happiness where I'm happy of what I've achieved (and what I plan on achieving), of being with a partner that I love, value, respect, and so on, being happy that I've gone throughout my life by staying true to myself and not swaying for a cheap thrill. I've always seen myself as having a different outlook on life, as seeing things differently to my friends, of not being driven by emotions 100% of the time, not jumping into a relationship after a few weeks of having known the person, but taking a rational approach to my life (more or less). Wanna hear the funny part to this all: all of my friends (some I've known for 9 years, others for 6) eventually come around to agreeing with me, they eventually reach a point of reasoning/thinking that I was at at say 17.

    The reason why I'm so overly critical of these "juggalo" people is that such "movements" can easily appeal to impressionable youth, who either feel like they don't "fit in" or they have no friends, nobody to whom they can relate with, parents at home don't care, they don't know what to do with their life, etc. So they join some group that really has no direction, no long term goal, yet the only goal is the whim of the moment, whatever feels good at that point do it. Ecstasy, why not?
    The point is that the religion has an actual reason to make their morals that. The Big Bad Man in the Sky says so, and he has ultimate authority over the entire cosmos and is omnipotent to boot, so what he say goes. That's a pretty stupid reason, but it's still a reason. If you take those morals, take away the religion and don't replace them with some other reason for having them then you have them for no reason at all.
    Well I just explained that.

  5. #35
    Draco, what you post makes me wonder how you would have "survived" the 60s', either as a young adult or as a parent.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco View Post
    Thanks for telling me what I think. But I'll say it again (and again if I have to), I've never ever said that people shouldn't be able to do what ever the hell they want with their own bodies. I've obviously stated my disapproval of their actions, yet I've never said something along the lines of "They shouldn't be allowed to do that", NEVER. So please stop twisting/misinterpreting my argument.
    I'm not twisting your argument, you're just now following it properly. I don't really feel like repeating myself, so go back and read it again, properly this time. I flat out stated that you didn't think the government should enforce your own "moral code".

    You know what else I disagree with: business owners who turn away customers on grounds of their sexuality, religion, skin colour, gender, whatever. Where's the reasoning behind that?
    It has negative consequences for others.

    So going by your logic for the use of the word "disagree", what I'm really saying is "Business owners should not be allowed to turn away any customers." Please stop twisting what I'm saying. But if you still don't "get me" then I'll sum it up with a nice quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    No, that is not my logic. You seriously need to learn to read.

    I also disagree with one of my friends who supports the carbon tax in Australia, so what now? Is it that what I'm really saying is: You're not allowed to voice your support for the carbon tax.
    Do you disagree with the carbon tax itself, or with your friends supporting it?

    You don't seem to understand the distinction between a) personal preference b) some statement with which people can agree or disagree (e.g. a carbon tax is a good or a bad thing) or c) behavior which has consequences for other people. What would you think if I said "I disapprove of people who wear the color yellow, because I think it's not a very tasteful color"?

    For me it is, in a monogamous relationship.
    And it should be for everyone else, right?

    Homophobia though? That's funny, since I'm gay myself. It's not the first time someone's called me homophobic though.
    "even if you've ditched the attachment to the ceremony and the homophobia." Learn. To. Read.

    Because that's what I take to be a rational outlook on life. To live with integrity, self respect, morals, values, to be someone who upholds reason. Because that's what I've found makes me happy, and by "happy" I mean a long term happiness where I'm happy of what I've achieved (and what I plan on achieving), of being with a partner that I love, value, respect, and so on, being happy that I've gone throughout my life by staying true to myself and not swaying for a cheap thrill. I've always seen myself as having a different outlook on life, as seeing things differently to my friends, of not being driven by emotions 100% of the time, not jumping into a relationship after a few weeks of having known the person, but taking a rational approach to my life (more or less). Wanna hear the funny part to this all: all of my friends (some I've known for 9 years, others for 6) eventually come around to agreeing with me, they eventually reach a point of reasoning/thinking that I was at at say 17.
    So, basically, you live the way you do because it makes you happy. And you think everyone else should be made happy by the same things that make you happy, and live their lives accordingly?

    The reason why I'm so overly critical of these "juggalo" people is that such "movements" can easily appeal to impressionable youth, who either feel like they don't "fit in" or they have no friends, nobody to whom they can relate with, parents at home don't care, they don't know what to do with their life, etc. So they join some group that really has no direction, no long term goal, yet the only goal is the whim of the moment, whatever feels good at that point do it. Ecstasy, why not?
    You've yet to explain why drug taking, sleeping around and other "immoral" behaviors are mutually incompatible with being successful or having a long term goal in life. Those activities are hardly unknown in high-powered, highly paid professions. There's a reason there are STD clinics set up specifically to service the City of London.

    Well I just explained that.
    Not really. You just proclaimed that one set of behavior is bad and another is good without really explaining why or even why those two sets of behavior are actually mutually incompatible.
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  7. #37
    Okay but high-powered and highly paid professions are hardly known for being full of the happiest most stable people in the world, that's why doctors and chefs are among the worst alcoholics and druggies but I just don't understand how leftists can support colourful clothes when yellow is such a tasteless colour





    Draco, can you acknowledge that "speaking" and "judging" can, hypothetically, be a form of "doing"?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  8. #38
    <totally unrelated, but when minx said yellow....I thought of yellow corn and squash, not something chefs or doctors would recommend, because they're high in carbs. Then there are.....yellow bellied cowards. Or tying yellow ribbons around trees for missing soldiers. Yellow can also signify bilirubin problems for newborns, or liver problems for adults. Yellow is a rather "bad" color.>

  9. #39
    Senior Member Draco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    573
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Draco, what you post makes me wonder how you would have "survived" the 60s', either as a young adult or as a parent.
    If I was the same as I am now, as a young adult, I would have survived. Don't want to think what it would have been like as a parent though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    I'm not twisting your argument, you're just now following it properly. I don't really feel like repeating myself, so go back and read it again, properly this time. I flat out stated that you didn't think the government should enforce your own "moral code".
    Um ok then.

    It has negative consequences for others.
    No shit.

    No, that is not my logic. You seriously need to learn to read.
    Yes it is. And no I don't.

    Do you disagree with the carbon tax itself, or with your friends supporting it?
    Uh..well I obviously disagree with both. They're the same thing. I can't agree with his support, yet disagree with the carbon tax, I'm contradicting myself that way. How can you say in response to someone declaring their support for it "Well I disagree with the carbon tax itself, but I agree with you supporting it." Just as I disagree with his promiscuous lifestyle, I also happen to disagree with promiscuity. I'm not going to say "Well I disagree with promiscuity, but I agree with your promiscuous lifestyle."

    You don't seem to understand the distinction between a) personal preference b) some statement with which people can agree or disagree (e.g. a carbon tax is a good or a bad thing) or c) behavior which has consequences for other people.
    No it's you who's doing the misunderstanding, and now you're trying to turn it on me.
    What would you think if I said "I disapprove of people who wear the color yellow, because I think it's not a very tasteful color"?
    That you disapprove/don't agree with people who wear the colour yellow..........
    Seriously, how meticulous can you get with a damn word? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disapprove
    1. To have an unfavorable opinion of; condemn.
    2. To refuse to approve; reject.
    v.intr. To have an unfavorable opinion: disapproves of drinking. <-----ZOMG, so I also have an unfavourable opinion of drinking, just as you have an unfavourable opinion of the colour yellow, and people wearing it.



    And it should be for everyone else, right?
    Because that's exactly what I said, right?

    So, basically, you live the way you do because it makes you happy. And you think everyone else should be made happy by the same things that make you happy, and live their lives accordingly?
    Here we go again. I never said "everyone else should be made happy by listening to me" PLEASE stop twisting my arguments to suit your own little rant against me, FFS.

    You've yet to explain why drug taking, sleeping around and other "immoral" behaviors are mutually incompatible with being successful or having a long term goal in life.
    Because going by the experiences of others that I've known of, of people I went to high school with, who took that path of drugs, sleeping around and the likes: they haven't achieved anything. They saw a brief glimpse of their potential at one point and chose the easy way out. I've known a lot of smart people who went down that path, who just became apathetic towards their life. Sure, I also know of people who did engage in such behaviour (more like 2 people, and they came close to screwing up their life): drugs, casual sex, and they're both high school teachers now. One of them still isn't sure what he wants out of life, and still has the same insecurity issues as he did in high school, whilst the other can't comit to a relationship, so he goes to "swinger parties."

    Tell me how: wanting to achieve a long term goal (being successful, career, buying a house, whatever), yet on the way, you involve yourself in such actions that could easily lead to destroying your own life, is going to guarantee you success in the end? Sure, even leading a life that's opposed to such self desctructive behaviour may not guarantee you the success that you want, but at least you would have tried. As the saying goes "it is better to have tried and failed than not tried at all."

    Those activities are hardly unknown in high-powered, highly paid professions. There's a reason there are STD clinics set up specifically to service the City of London.
    Well I can't comment on such individuals in these high-powered, highly paid professions, without knowing something about their past, whether they were like that before, what brought it all on and the likes. There's a reason why people go from "I'll try it just once" to doing it every single day.
    I get it, some people try drugs the first time to see what all the hype is about, some get drunk every now and then coz it's fun, yet many continue on with drug use and excessive alcohol consumption, and there's a reason why they do that: to escape reality, their problems, etc.

    Not really. You just proclaimed that one set of behavior is bad and another is good without really explaining why or even why those two sets of behavior are actually mutually incompatible.
    Because one of them advocates for leading a consistent life with integrity and self-respect, whilst the other advocates leading a life of inconsistency, uncertainty, of acting on the whim of the moment, not planning for the future and so on. One of them gives you a clear path, whilst the other is just a maze of unclear paths.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Okay but high-powered and highly paid professions are hardly known for being full of the happiest most stable people in the world, that's why doctors and chefs are among the worst alcoholics and druggies but I just don't understand how leftists can support colourful clothes when yellow is such a tasteless colour
    Sure, there's bound to be unhappiness in a lot of professions, particularly ones that are repetitive. Like I said before, I can't comment on individual chefs or doctors, but I'd ask them whether they would have preferred living a life of uncertainty, living like these "juggalos", not using their minds and the likes.

    Draco, can you acknowledge that "speaking" and "judging" can, hypothetically, be a form of "doing"?
    Yeah ok. But still, I never anywhere declared "They can't do that, they shouldn't do that..." I never even remotely suggested the use of force, through a word, for them to be stopped, just because I disagree.

  10. #40
    Draco, can you see which of your statements in the above post highlight your near-total lack of empathy (which is, btw, one of humanity's most valuable faculties)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Draco View Post
    Yeah ok. But still, I never anywhere declared "They can't do that, they shouldn't do that..." I never even remotely suggested the use of force, through a word, for them to be stopped, just because I disagree.
    No, you're instead content with ranting and raging and condemning on a forum. But I'm sure you're great at hiding your judgement of your imperfect friends from your friends. Well, the ones you haven't stopped being friends with anyway.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco View Post
    Uh..well I obviously disagree with both. They're the same thing. I can't agree with his support, yet disagree with the carbon tax, I'm contradicting myself that way. How can you say in response to someone declaring their support for it "Well I disagree with the carbon tax itself, but I agree with you supporting it." Just as I disagree with his promiscuous lifestyle, I also happen to disagree with promiscuity. I'm not going to say "Well I disagree with promiscuity, but I agree with your promiscuous lifestyle."
    There's a difference between support and voicing your support, which is what you were talking about earlier . So what you're saying is "I disagree with your opinion, but approve of you expression your opinion". Basically the Voltaire quote you tried to through in my face earlier.

    No it's you who's doing the misunderstanding, and now you're trying to turn it on me.
    Are you going to explain how I've misunderstood, or have you basically stooped to "no u" now?

    That you disapprove/don't agree with people who wear the colour yellow..........
    Seriously, how meticulous can you get with a damn word? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disapprove
    1. To have an unfavorable opinion of; condemn.
    2. To refuse to approve; reject.
    v.intr. To have an unfavorable opinion: disapproves of drinking. <-----ZOMG, so I also have an unfavourable opinion of drinking, just as you have an unfavourable opinion of the colour yellow, and people wearing it.
    Just how thick are you? Can you honestly not see a difference between not wanting to do something yourself and thinking that other people shouldn't do it too? Like, are those one and the same thing to you? If there's a food you don't like, do you "disapprove" of other people eating it even though they enjoy it?

    Because that's exactly what I said, right?
    Yes.

    Here we go again. I never said "everyone else should be made happy by listening to me" PLEASE stop twisting my arguments to suit your own little rant against me, FFS.
    Yes, you did. It's not my fault you're too damned stupid to see the obvious implications of your own words.

    Because going by the experiences of others that I've known of, of people I went to high school with, who took that path of drugs, sleeping around and the likes: they haven't achieved anything. They saw a brief glimpse of their potential at one point and chose the easy way out. I've known a lot of smart people who went down that path, who just became apathetic towards their life. Sure, I also know of people who did engage in such behaviour (more like 2 people, and they came close to screwing up their life): drugs, casual sex, and they're both high school teachers now. One of them still isn't sure what he wants out of life, and still has the same insecurity issues as he did in high school, whilst the other can't comit to a relationship, so he goes to "swinger parties."
    So, of the people you know who took drugs and slept around, some screwed up their lives and the others didn't. And the two who took drugs &c and didn't screw up have a couple of common, mild psychological issues. Well, fine. Now, tell me of of the people you know from back then who didn't take drugs and sleep around, how many have gone on to lead successful lives and how many haven't really amounted to anything?

    Tell me how: wanting to achieve a long term goal (being successful, career, buying a house, whatever), yet on the way, you involve yourself in such actions that could easily lead to destroying your own life, is going to guarantee you success in the end? Sure, even leading a life that's opposed to such self desctructive behaviour may not guarantee you the success that you want, but at least you would have tried. As the saying goes "it is better to have tried and failed than not tried at all."
    It might be better if you didn't point how your own argument is stupid in the very next sentence. If 'guaranteeing success' was the criteria we used to judge actions, no one would ever do anything.

    Fun Fact: David Cameron, who is the prime minister of the UK, smoked cannabis extensively while he was a teenager.

    Because one of them advocates for leading a consistent life with integrity and self-respect, whilst the other advocates leading a life of inconsistency, uncertainty, of acting on the whim of the moment, not planning for the future and so on. One of them gives you a clear path, whilst the other is just a maze of unclear paths.
    Would you please stop using weasel words like "integrity" and "self-respect" and come up with some specific, objective reasons why the behaviors you have a problem with are bad?

    Sure, there's bound to be unhappiness in a lot of professions, particularly ones that are repetitive.
    I have in mind investment bankers here, btw, that's what the City of London (which, confusingly, is a district within London) is known for.

    Yeah ok. But still, I never anywhere declared "They can't do that, they shouldn't do that..." I never even remotely suggested the use of force, through a word, for them to be stopped, just because I disagree.
    But fundamentally, you still think you actually have the right to 'agree' or 'disagree' with behavior that doesn't have anything to do with you.
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  12. #42
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    He just loves the term "self-respect". Even where it doesn't make any sense.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  13. #43
    I want to give advice to Draco, and others that Nessus and Steely Glint, and not just them, are in many ways "elitist fools". It's, kind of mean to say and I hate to say it... In their arrogance they think their ideas are right, and that's all that matters. As if they're the only people that have come to this special state of enlightentment. Ironcially they exhibit many of the qualities of religious fundamentals, the people they hate most, and feel are destroying the world. Which hopefully they will change their perspective in the future . Also, learn to communicate in a straightforward way that doesn't include personal attacks.
    Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 10-03-2011 at 01:06 AM.

  14. #44
    Senior Member Draco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    573
    ^^But of course, no topic is complete without you chiming in. (that was meant for Khen)

    Lebanese Dragon:
    In their arrogance they think their ideas are right
    Well I know they're right for me because they work, and they do so for others that I know

    Ironcially they exhibit many of the qualities of religious fundamentals, the people they hate most, and feel are destroying the world.
    I'm not forcing my views onto others (oh know, look out for Steely Glint here!).

    Also, learn to communicate in a straightforward way that doesn't include personal attacks.
    Too late now. I asked Steely Glint, and he/she seems to be incapable of having a debate that doesn't involve insulting me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    No, you're instead content with ranting and raging and condemning on a forum. But I'm sure you're great at hiding your judgement of your imperfect friends from your friends. Well, the ones you haven't stopped being friends with anyway.
    You're a mind reader too now?
    Don't you worry about my friends, they know what I think about some of their traits, and it's these ones who have slowly seen my reasoning over the years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Are you going to explain how I've misunderstood, or have you basically stooped to "no u" now?
    You're making me out to be someone who's saying that these people shouldn't be allowed, that because I disagree, therefore I think they shouldn't be allowed to do what they what with their own bodies.

    Just how thick are you? Can you honestly not see a difference between not wanting to do something yourself and thinking that other people shouldn't do it too? Like, are those one and the same thing to you? If there's a food you don't like, do you "disapprove" of other people eating it even though they enjoy it?
    Not as thick as you. But this is getting beyond ridiculous: show me where I said "they shouldn't do that" WHERE?!

    Yes.
    lol right.

    Yes, you did. It's not my fault you're too damned stupid to see the obvious implications of your own words.
    No actually, you're the half wit who keeps on misinterpreting what I'm saying to suit your little rant against me, get over it.

    So, of the people you know who took drugs and slept around, some screwed up their lives and the others didn't. And the two who took drugs &c and didn't screw up have a couple of common, mild psychological issues. Well, fine. Now, tell me of of the people you know from back then who didn't take drugs and sleep around, how many have gone on to lead successful lives and how many haven't really amounted to anything?
    Sure. All of them, including me, haven't amounted to anything (at least for now). We're either at university pursuing post graduate studies, or slowly making a career for ourselves, or doing something that we enjoy doing, whether it's raising a family, or traveling the world. At least we're making something out of ourselves, we have a clear goal, more or less, and working towards it. Even if we don't get where we want to be, at least we tried, and we'll end up in a much better position than if we had taken a self destructive path.

    It might be better if you didn't point how your own argument is stupid in the very next sentence. If 'guaranteeing success' was the criteria we used to judge actions, no one would ever do anything.
    I expected you to say something like this.

    Fun Fact: David Cameron, who is the prime minister of the UK, smoked cannabis extensively while he was a teenager.
    Wow, good for him. I wonder whether he did it through out his studies and whilst he was developing a career as a politician? It's too bad many other people start off with cannabis, then going onto cocaine, e and so on.

    Would you please stop using weasel words like "integrity" and "self-respect" and come up with some specific, objective reasons why the behaviors you have a problem with are bad?
    Hey you're the master of implications here, I thought you'd have picked up on it all already? Oh right, you're only interpreting what I'm saying in some crazy way that makes me out to be this "stupid bad person boo hoo"

    But fundamentally, you still think you actually have the right to 'agree' or 'disagree' with behavior that doesn't have anything to do with you.
    UH..yeah. Just as I disagree with terrorists running around the world, just as I disagree with rapists, just as I disagree with people who make the drugs I deplore. Look at that: terrorism has nothing to do with me, neither do rapists, and neither do those who make drugs!

    Btw, if you continue on in the same, condescending manner, where you're twisting my argument just to suit your little rant, I won't be replying to you anymore. Either grow up or stfu.

    I can't believe the hostility I'm met with though. Probably because I'm not part of the left-wing clique on this forum.

  15. #45
    On this whole drug issue. I do think legalizing weed will stop it from becoming a gateway drug. (since it's illegal you have to deal with shady people in shady situations). It's not helpful really cognitively, but if not abused you can live a fairly productive life while using that as your get-away. I dont' support it, it has some bad side-affects, but I wouldn't be opposed to it's legalization either. For the record I'm not taking draco's or steely's side, just commenting on the weed issue.
    Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 10-03-2011 at 01:07 AM.

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco View Post
    You're a mind reader too now?
    Don't you worry about my friends, they know what I think about some of their traits, and it's these ones who have slowly seen my reasoning over the years.
    You mean the ones who haven't betrayed you? I am definitely a mind-reader, most people are. That's how they usually know when you have a hard time separating hating the sinner and hating the sin.




    So, on the matter of empathy that you glossed over...?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon View Post
    In their arrogance they think their ideas are right, and that's all that matters. As if they're the only people that have come to this special state of enlightentment. Ironcially they exhibit many of the qualities of religious fundamentals
    Dear Lebbie,

    have you so completely forgotten your own posting history? or so totally missed Draco's posts? What you describe are traits shared by almost everyone on this forum.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  18. #48
    What you describe are traits shared by almost everyone on this forum.
    It's a bad trait, I admit I have a tendancy to be very opinionated as well. But I hope that I remain open minded, and that I remain in a state where I allow myself to know that i might be wrong. It's dangerous not to do so.

  19. #49
    Senior Member Draco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    573
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    You mean the ones who haven't betrayed you? I am definitely a mind-reader, most people are. That's how they usually know when you have a hard time separating hating the sinner and hating the sin.
    Um ok?

    So, on the matter of empathy that you glossed over...?
    Glossed over, haha that's cute
    But which part of my post? Was it the one where I give examples of people that I know? So just because I didn't say "But i feel sorry for them *tear*" means I'm this heartless person who isn't capable of empathy? Sure, I do feel "sorry" for them sometimes, but when they turn around and treat me disrespectfully, I'm not going to pile my sympathy upon them. I'll gladly give my support to any of my friends, but the moment they treat me like crap, it's over.

  20. #50
    I said "empathy" not "sympathy", do you understand the difference between the two?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  21. #51
    Senior Member Draco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    573
    Ok instead of "sorry" I'll say: I identify with their feelings
    Are you really going to get particular about a word? So I answered your question, now what? Am I a heart felt person?
    Funny thing is those two guys I mentioned, they're the last people I'd expect any sort of empathy or sympathy from. One of them thinks It's funny to insult people who are fat, whilst the other "doesn't like black people."

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco View Post
    Ok instead of "sorry" I'll say: I identify with their feelings
    But you really don't. You identify with your feelings. You spend a great deal of energy vehemently condemning people for behaviour you find contemptible, but that contempt--and the things you say about these people, the narrative you construct and focus exclusively on--show that you don't empathise with them. You can't put yourself aside. This lack of empathy with others precludes you from understanding them and their motivations, and it keeps you trapped in this state of contemptuousness. Worst of all it seems to lead to a great deal of frustration, which became esp. noticeable in the discussion about online dating.

    Are you really going to get particular about a word? So I answered your question, now what? Am I a heart felt person?
    I don't know, I think you're pretty genuine, but I don't think you can (or let yourself) empathise with others. That has little bearing on the goodness of your heart, but it matters a lot to the goodness of your actions.

    Funny thing is those two guys I mentioned, they're the last people I'd expect any sort of empathy or sympathy from. One of them thinks It's funny to insult people who are fat, whilst the other "doesn't like black people."
    Why's that?
    Last edited by Aimless; 10-03-2011 at 12:46 AM.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  23. #53
    Senior Member Draco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    573
    So I don't identify with their feelings, oh well. I stopped trying to identify with anyones feelings (well aside from my family, but this isn't about family) when I realised that I just could not understand their irrational behaviour, no matter how much I tried to put myself in "their shoes," or when their actions hurt our friendship, I gave up and figured it wasn't worth the effort to waste my mind on. Funny thing is I don't have a single friend who has even a modicum of empathy: they're all quick to talk about their problems, listen to my advice, mull it over for a bit, tell me that I'm right (or imply it), then when I need someone to talk to, all I get are a few nods and a few "yep, yep, ok".

    Why's that?
    Because deep down inside I know that they're insecure with themselves. Probably other reasons, but I don't care for them.

  24. #54
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Draco: about your opinions on how people who drink/use drugs/sleep around generally being failures with no goals in life, I think you'd be surprised about the vast amounts of sex, drugs, and alcohol being consumed in, say, the higher level corporate jobs. You probably just don't notice as much (possibly because you're in college, and don't actually know many people who have achieved anything yet?). I used to work in a bar that was frequented mostly by people over 30, who almost all had steady, often higher level corporate jobs. They drank a lot, and a lot of them used coke. I know a lot of researchers, teachers and professors at university who drink quite a lot from time to time (my dean's also known for it). Yet they are still highly functioning, excellent teachers/researchers/professors.

    I will agree that if you use too much alcohol/drugs, so that it affects your day-to-day life negatively (e.g. being stoned or drunk nonstop), that's not good, and stops you from achieving what you want, but I don't see anything wrong with recreational drinking, drug use, or sleeping around (I would say that last one is probably always recreational ). If I'm completely fucked up saturday night, but still make my monday morning lecture, keep up with homework and pass my exams, I don't see a problem with that.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  25. #55
    From what I understand in Japan, drinking very heavily after work everyday is a common practice. Over time they've physically developed the ability to maintain this lifestyle, and still wake up for work the next day.

    they're all quick to talk about their problems, listen to my advice, mull it over for a bit, tell me that I'm right (or imply it), then when I need someone to talk to, all I get are a few nods and a few "yep, yep, ok".
    Your attitude that your view is "right" is probably why you have driven away many friends of yours, and many friends might just say you're right so they don't have to listen to you. This is not a healthy attitude to have. I'm not a big fan of drinking, or smoking weed. I do cite the health issues, and dangers that are present when high or drunk as reasons not to do it. However, I do think people can partake in such activities in a way that relieves stress temporarily, and if done infrequently, spread out, it's not neccessarily harmful, any more than blowing a night away playing a video game is.

    There are definitely real dangers when people try to use drugs, legal or illegal, as longterm solution to life problems. It takes you no where but in circles, and you are more apt to make problems and stress larger than to contain or resolve them. I think talking about problems to people you trust, even if they won't fully understand, is a much better recourse.


    Lastly, if you lack empathy then it's really useless to give people advice, if you can't understand where they are, then you can't hope to show them a path they can take that may be helpful.

    Learning is the goal of all discussions being right or wrong just happens.
    Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 10-03-2011 at 08:49 PM.

  26. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco View Post
    You're making me out to be someone who's saying that these people shouldn't be allowed, that because I disagree, therefore I think they shouldn't be allowed to do what they what with their own bodies.
    "shouldn't do that" is not the same as "that should be forbidden by law". I don't think people should jump queues that is not the same thing as saying 'queue jumping should be illegal'. This conversation is really going nowhere until you grasp this incredibly simple concept.

    Not as thick as you. But this is getting beyond ridiculous: show me where I said "they shouldn't do that" WHERE?!
    The parts where you said you disapprove or disagree you are implicit saying that those things that you disapprove of are not things people should do.

    Sure. All of them, including me, haven't amounted to anything (at least for now). We're either at university pursuing post graduate studies, or slowly making a career for ourselves, or doing something that we enjoy doing, whether it's raising a family, or traveling the world. At least we're making something out of ourselves, we have a clear goal, more or less, and working towards it. Even if we don't get where we want to be, at least we tried, and we'll end up in a much better position than if we had taken a self destructive path.
    So, basically, the people who did take drugs and the people who didn't are more or less both just getting on with their lives and though none of you have done much yet you're still, young etc etc... but for some reason those who didn't take drugs get points for 'trying to do something' even though there seems to be no particular objective difference between what both groups are actually doing?

    I expected you to say something like this.
    So? You knew it was a stupid thing to say but you typed it in anyway? Do you want a medal?

    Wow, good for him. I wonder whether he did it through out his studies and whilst he was developing a career as a politician? It's too bad many other people start off with cannabis, then going onto cocaine, e and so on.
    While he was at school.

    Hey you're the master of implications here, I thought you'd have picked up on it all already? Oh right, you're only interpreting what I'm saying in some crazy way that makes me out to be this "stupid bad person boo hoo"
    Well, if you don't want me to do that then why don't you explain what you mean when you use the words "self-respect" and integrity" and how you can't have them if you drink heavily, have lots of causal sex or take drugs?

    UH..yeah. Just as I disagree with terrorists running around the world, just as I disagree with rapists, just as I disagree with people who make the drugs I deplore. Look at that: terrorism has nothing to do with me, neither do rapists, and neither do those who make drugs!
    No one will notice you've suddenly shifted from taking about people who use drugs to people who produce them.

    Anyway, terrorists and rapists have victims, drug users, the promiscuous and binge drinkers don't.

    Btw, if you continue on in the same, condescending manner, where you're twisting my argument just to suit your little rant, I won't be replying to you anymore. Either grow up or stfu.
    Would you prefer it if, rather than calling you a fucking idiot to your face for something you've said on a public forum, I instead heaped scorn and condemnation on the way you've chosen to life your life on another board?

    I can't believe the hostility I'm met with though. Probably because I'm not part of the left-wing clique on this forum.
    Incidentally, I have literally never come across someone who ever had anything worthwhile and interesting to say about anything who also claimed the bad reaction they were getting was simply because they dared to challenged some orthodoxy or other.
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  27. #57
    Goddman druggies, they could at least try and make something of their lives, frigging child rape victims have no Integrity or Self Respect like me... etc etc oh you can just write the rest yourselves.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ptsd-sufferers

    Doctors are planning the first clinical trial of ecstasy in the UK, to see whether the drug can be beneficial to the traumatised survivors of child abuse, rape and war.

    Ecstasy and other illegal drugs such as LSD and magic mushrooms are potentially useful in treating people with serious psychological disturbance who cannot begin to face up to their distress, some psychiatrists and therapists believe. But because of public fear and tabloid anger about illegal drugs, scientists say they find it almost impossible to explore their potential.

    Professor David Nutt, the psychopharmacologist who used to head the government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs until he fell out with the Labour home secretary and was sacked, said: "I feel quite strongly that many drugs with therapeutic potential have been denied to patients and researchers because of the drugs regulation. The drugs have been made illegal in a vain attempt to stop kids using them, but people haven't thought about the negative consequences."

    Nutt and the Taunton-based psychiatrist Dr Ben Sessa are two of the British scientists who hope to repeat an experiment on patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) undertaken in the US which, although small, was successful and has caused some in the scientific community to think what was until recently unthinkable. It involved 20 people who had been in therapy and on pills for an average of 19 years. Twelve were given MDMA – or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, the chemical compound found, often adulterated, in ecstasy tablets. The rest had placebo pills but were later also given the chance to take MDMA. Each one had a therapy session, lying back in a reclining chair in a pleasant flower-decorated room in South Carolina, wearing an eyemask.

    Sometimes they listened to music on headphones and sometimes they talked to the therapist, all the while thinking about the events that had caused such profound distress that they had been unable to revisit it in past psychotherapy sessions.

    The response rate was a remarkable 83% – 10 out of the 12 showed significant improvement two months after the second of two MDMA therapy sessions. That compared with 25% of those on the placebo. There were no serious side-effects and no long-term problems.

    "I expected it was going to be effective," said Michael Mithoefer, the psychiatrist who ran the US study and carried out the psychotherapy with his wife, Ann. "I suppose we wouldn't have done it otherwise. But I didn't necessarily expect we'd find such statistical significance in that number [of people]. That was the icing on the cake."

    The high number of troops returning with PTSD from Afghanistan and Iraq is attracting special attention to the study in the US. Only one of the 20 was a veteran, while the rest had suffered childhood sexual abuse, rape or other kinds of assault. Mithoefer's next study will be on veterans alone.

    Nutt said PTSD is "an extraordinarily disabling condition and we don't have any really effective treatments. In order to deal with trauma, you have to be able to re-engage with the memory and then deal with it. For many people, as soon as the memory comes into consciousness, so does the fear and disgust".

    Mithoefer said the participants did not appear to have joined the trial in hopes of some sort of high. "I don't think that was much of a factor at all. Some people were referred by their therapist and had never taken any drugs and were quite anxious about the whole thing and for them it was a last resort.

    " Interestingly, several people said after their session: 'I don't know why they call this ecstasy' – because it was not an ecstatic experience. They were revisiting the trauma. It was very difficult and painful work, but the ecstasy gave them the feeling they could do it."

    People spoke of getting past a barrier. One said: "I feel like I'm walking in a place I've needed to go for so long and just didn't know how to get there.

    "I feel like I know myself better than I ever have before. Now I know I'm a normal person. I've been through some bad stuff, but … those are things have happened to me, not who I am … This is me. The medicine helps, but this is in me."

    Another said: "I have respect for my emotions now (rather than fear of them). What's most comforting is knowing now I can handle difficult feelings without being overwhelmed. I realise feeling the fear and anger is not nearly as big a deal as I thought it would be."

    Ben Sessa said he hoped to recreate the study in the UK but "with an added twist – lots of neuroimaging". The only brain scans that have been done are of recreational ecstasy users, whose drugs may be contaminated and who have probably taken other substances, too.The death in 1995 of Leah Betts after taking ecstasy, from drinking too much water in response to a campaign warning ravers of the danger of dehydration, had prevented rational debate or scientific advance.

    MDMA, he said, "is not about dancing around nightclubs – it's a really useful psychiatric drug".

    Nutt said it made him angry that MDMA and LSD had been banned before any doctor could establish their potential benefit. LSD was being tried among terminal cancer patients.

    "When I started in medicine in 1969 they were starting to see some interesting data in the use of LSD to help people make sense of dying. I don't think it is fair that because a drug is misused it should be banned from use in medicine," he said Heroin has been around for a hundred years so although it is illegal for street use, at least we have got that..

    Leading the movement to get MDMA licensed for medical use is Rick Doblin, the founder in 1986 in the US of Maps, the non-profit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, which backed Mithoefer's trial. "I think the chances of getting a licence are excellent. We have demonstrated an excellent level of safety. It's worked. It's necessary," he said. "It is probably going to take 10 years and $10m to do it."

    Doblin, whose organisation relies on philanthropic donors, has no idea where that money will come from. Nutt and Sessa, whose proposed trial in the UK would boost the chances of MDMA entering the (locked) psychiatric drug cabinet are waiting for a response to their modest grant application from one of the UK's leading medical research funders. Sessa is optimistic; battle-scarred Nutt less so. Ecstasy will for ever be controversial. "If we get the study funded and into the public domain," said Nutt, "the Daily Mail will try to have it banned."
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  28. #58
    This is among the most banal lines of inquiry to what determine what a poster really means that I've seen.

    You can disagree with somebody, and what they do with their bodies and still think they have a right to do it. Full stop.

    Furthermore, there are many real people who have really had their lives ruined by addictive substances, either through the addiction itself, or through health problems caused by the use/abuse of these products.

    In short, several posters are disagreeing with Draco just to disagree with him, not because they have real or substantive objections to his positions.
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 10-03-2011 at 11:27 PM.

  29. #59
    I don't know about everyone else, but I mainly have a problem with him thinking he has some sort of set of superior morals or values that gives him any realistic sense of a soapbox in which to preach about what he is still learning about.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco View Post
    So I don't identify with their feelings, oh well. I stopped trying to identify with anyones feelings (well aside from my family, but this isn't about family) when I realised that I just could not understand their irrational behaviour
    But you kinda can:

    Because deep down inside I know that they're insecure with themselves.
    You have it in you!

    Now think a few steps further. Does being insecure strike you as being "easy"?

    Does feeling bad strike you as being easy? How do you think it feels to not have much self-respect? How do you think it feels to be in a position where you're driven to "choose" various escapes from reality because you just know you can't actually solve your problems, that terrible is as good as it's gonna get for you, and you probably don't even deserve better? What kind of reality do you think that might be? And do you really think you can escape from such a reality, as eg. an addict?

    For the record, addicts frequently do have problems with self-respect and integrity. It's kinda tied in with the definition of addiction. And it sucks. If we wanna talk about virtue, I gotta tell you, I don't think it's virtuous to judge a person for suffering.

    Funny thing is I don't have a single friend who has even a modicum of empathy: they're all quick to talk about their problems, listen to my advice, mull it over for a bit, tell me that I'm right (or imply it), then when I need someone to talk to, all I get are a few nods and a few "yep, yep, ok".
    Mate, maybe you're looking to the wrong people for help and support. Maybe they're bad friends, or maybe they're not able to appreciate what you're trying to convey about your feelings, or maybe they can't properly convey their support, or maybe they're also bad at exercising their empathy. Who knows. Thank your lucky stars they say, "Yep, yep, ok," instead of "Serves you right; what did you expect?"

    It's a shame you feel you aren't getting what you want and need out of these relationships, but I don't know if you should let your personal experiences with unrewarding friendships ruin the way you relate to humanity in general.

    And I say this not because I think you're a blight on humanity; I say it because I think it's causing you more unhappiness than happiness. Exercising your empathy isn't going to make you weaker. It might instead make you stronger and more in touch with your own humanity. And that might help you better deal with your world, your relationships, and with your own issues (because we gotta be able to empathise with ourselves too). Look, it isn't easy, but you don't wanna take the easy way out, do you?

    Do you??

    I invite you to consider the possibility that judging people in the way you do is taking the easy way out in order to escape reality.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •