Well I can't talk to you in person so I'll just have to take your word for that, but as far as your behavior on this website, I beg to differ. What you in fact seem to do is take the most easily interpreted sentence, or sometimes even just a few words, and reply to that. However, what I write requires greater attention to the gestalt, if you will, of the text. Allow me to elaborate ramble:equal2u wrote:I almost always respond to every point everyone makes. I'm reading and responding to your rambling now aren't I? If you ever had a conversation with me face to face you would find that I always let the other person finish, which is quite rare, as most people are incapable of engaging in civilized debate and will always interrupt me before I've finished my first sentence even though I've sat and carefully listened to them rambling on for 10 minutes.
A very simple sentence, difficult to misinterpret, to which you respond characteristically with, "I'm the most constructive debater that has ever lived." Indeed. Here I am setting the stage for a sub-point - "your 'debate' is destructive" - while breaking the ice, since I haven't posted in the thread recently._________ wrote:I think it's just a tiny bit hypocritical of you to complain about 'hate and rage levels' and the absence of 'constructive debate'.
This one's a bit longer, but still not all that complex. No matter. Your reply: "I haven't taken it so I don't know what it's like. It's fucking heroin dude. You don't need to take it to know what it's fucking like." I believe what you have responded to is the pink, and I'm not entirely sure you've even contradicted the sentence in which it is found._________ wrote:You seem to not be grasping this very simple concept which I will attempt to explain to you:
An individual at the point in time 'p' has a state of mind (or disposition, outlook, temperament, etc., if you prefer) which is governed, generally speaking, by inherent physiological characteristics (do a google search for 'personality neuroscience' to get the gist of what I mean here) and his/her experiences prior to 'p'. If one's state of mind is other than precisely what it was prior to an experience, then one would not be too absurd to assume experience affects state of mind. This being the case, though you may certainly understand the general idea of what an experience is like, you do not know from experience – and this is a serious handicap when dealing with mind-altering substances. To give an extreme analogy, you may understand the concept of close quarters combat, you may even excel in its simulation in videogames or paintball, but this doesn’t mean you’ll excel in the real-life scenario and unlike combat, you can’t train to handle a drug prior to taking the real deal.
This was a pretty long sentence and your missing the greater point here is my fault for having noted a similarity between you and an acquaintance of mine. My apologies. However, true to form, you replied only to the parenthetical, and then only to the issues of interruptions and missing points. It's difficult to interrupt someone on a forum, so I'll make no judgment there, but you have certainly missed a number of points... just sayin'._________ wrote:Now personality certainly plays a role. However, I don't know that one has to be an 'ass' to get hooked on drugs, just as I don't know that physical dependence is the only issue at stake with drug use. Likewise, though I know my personality would be different had I never tried any drugs, I don't know whether my experience was for the better or worse. I do know that I've had friends and acquaintances who've thought themselves enlightened by their drug use (in fact just a few days ago, I had a 'discussion' with an acquaintance who was on probation, pretty high on righteous indignation, returning to the same argument of 'that legislator is no different than me and therefore has no right to restrict what substances I take into my body', and despite endlessly telling me how much he wanted to hear what I had to say, in his drunken enlightenment interrupted or otherwise disregarded the bulk of the points I attempted to make so much so that I actually thought he and you may be one and the same)
Here we have the conclusion of the sentence which began in '3'. I got a bit symbolic here. My apologies. Your reply: "I can turn off my TV or I can change the channel. I can't turn off society. And I can't press a button and change to a different society like I can change the channel on my TV." Indeed you are correct. You can turn off your TV and you cannot turn off society, unless of course you have access to a doomsday device. However the point here is not about these birdies who haven't realized they thrive on bitching and whether or not they are capable of turning off the TV they love to hate, but whether or not they've really analyzed the TV (i.e. society) outside the effect it has on them and them alone - whether or not they're extrapolating their experience onto that of everyone else despite proclamations of the contrary._________ wrote:but are really just angst ridden malcontents frustrated with the society they haven't bothered to analyze any deeper than their own niche, and like so many ironists - those happy birds who've come to love their cage - are too rapt execrating the television to turn it off.
This is where you start to really mimic the process of interruption and illustrate precisely why it is destructive to the interpretive process. This is a component of the the point formed by the next four quotes. Your reply, "I don't know what you're talking about" is thus easy to understand: you don't know because you haven't read it yet._________ wrote:Tell me: how great is the rift between the state of new love and heart break? Can you admit there is a difference?
Your reply: "I don't believe in marriage or the concept of 'cheating'. If I have a sexual relationship with a woman and she has sex with someone else that's up to her, it's her body, I've no reason to be aggressive." I used a poor example for your case. Say you're doing heroin happily in your own home when suddenly a swat team busts in and arrests your ass with unnecessary force; are you then not predisposed to aggression or apathy (depending on your preferred line of flight)? In other words, is your state of mind not affected by this powerful experience and because of this, would you not react differently to unrelated stimuli than you would were your mental state not affected as such?_________ wrote:If you find your wife is cheating on you, are you not more predisposed to aggression or apathy (depending on your preferred line of flight)?
Your reply here - "Sure." - is important for '5d':_________ wrote:Likewise, if you enjoy something more than anything else in the world, would you not try to maximize your time experiencing it.
Your reply: "You don't have to do any of these things in excess to enjoy them." Indeed. However, if one of these things fits into the category described in '5c', then you've already agreed that you would try to maximize your time experiencing it. Believe it or not, striving to a maximum goes hand in hand with excess. So the point here is that because a) experience affects state of mind, b) an affected state of mind reacts to stimuli other than its "normal" reaction, c) individuals generally attempt to revisit pleasurable experiences, and d) the desire to maximize these pleasurable experiences can lead to excess, the more affected your mental state is, the more predisposed you are to excess. Moving on._________ wrote:For the same reason people eat in excess, fast in excess, exercise in excess, collect in excess, sleep, read, watch TV, play video games and fuck in excess, people do drugs in excess; it is an escape, and everyone wants to escape from time to time.
Your reply: "So Americans must all be treated like children or they'll harm themselves because of their clusterfucked nature. Maybe it's the fact that they're all treated like children when they're adults that clusterfucks them in the first place?" I actually laughed here, because you even quoted the portion - where your question is answered and the point explained - so let's go there._________ wrote:You don't have to be a moron or an asshole to go on vacation, nor do you need to be one to get caught up and forego a return - and I think you should indeed be free to take a vacation. However, I also think, from my perspective as a US citizen, that in countries such as mine where roughly 70% of the population is overweight, 13% smoke cigarettes, 50% drink alcohol, 76% believe in the Christian God, the average citizen watches 6 hours of TV daily, etc. there is a serious, deep-seeded social clusterfuck which I daresay could be exacerbated by selling everyone high-grade pharmakons at retail price.
Your reply: "It's always a wise decision to not violate peoples' human rights." Indeed, though I'm not sure you've proved that the prohibition of certain drugs is an explicit violation of human rights. Care to cite a precedent? Still, this bit (6-9) is understood better should you continue to the final points (10 and 11)._________ wrote:I don't mean this as 'the US will be destroyed if you legalize drugs' but that it might not be the wisest decision at this point in time.
Your reply: "I do know now because I know adults have a human right to decide which substances they wish to take into their own bodies." Again, please cite a precedent and prove that it applies. Otherwise, allow yourself to understand 8 in the context of 6-9._________ wrote:But maybe it is. I don't know. I don't think anyone does, at least not right now.
Your reply: "If the government violates the people the people will violate each other and eventually the society will self destruct. If the government respects the people the people will respect each other and the society will function to make its citizens happy. Biological organisms are reciprocal. You abuse a child all through his life he'll become an abusive adult. You abuse an entire society the society will be abusive. Drug laws designed to entirely prevent the use of certain drugs including heroin are abusive." By Jove, you must've mastered every relationship in your life! You must understand society perfectly and we should put you in charge! I would elaborate on the point here, only you seem to have understood it and merely contradicted it, apparently on the grounds of your omniscience and majesty._________ wrote:There was a tropical storm that poured over 15" of cumulative rain over an entire county in Florida (far north of where I am; we just got a tornado, 45 mph straight line winds gusting to 60, rain, and relatively severe erosion for just a TS), whose course and effects the NHC was completely at a loss to determine, even with the aid of numerous intricate computer models. I think the social dynamics of an entire country's collective psyche are just a bit more difficult to predict.
Your reply: "The mind prior to eating pizza cannot with total certainty predict the mind after a pizza. You can substitute 'pizza' for 'sex', 'playing tennis', 'reading a book', 'playing XBOX' or.... actually any activity." That is called a reductio ad absurdum and it is a logical fallacy. [edit: it is not a logical fallacy.]So what's this simple point I promised? That the mind prior to a drug cannot with total certainty predict the mind after a drug.
Your reply: "There's 7 billion these days, and I know abusing every single one of them (apart from the tiny minority living in uncontacted tribes where there may be no drug laws) is a bad fucking idea." Indeed, but lest I erroneously assume by this you mean that you believe yourself apt to determine the best interests of 7 billion people, could you clarify?These two states are separated by an event horizon, as are the social dynamics of a nation prior to and after the legalization of all drugs, and this transition is a river you only cross once. The other side is a singularity. Do you think you know the best interests of 300 million people? 6.5 billion? I know I don't.