Not only more powerful, but it actually has less peripheral nervous system activity. Central nervous system is where you get the good stuff: euphoria, pain relief. Peripheral involve unwanted side effects like, well: not breathing. So with the research chem I have in mind, you can survive the otherwise impossible euphoria. Not only that, but unlike all other opiates, it possesses NMDA activity, granting you what amounts to an ecstasy rush on top of the opiate rush. Simultaneously. From one drug. A drug that possess 100 percent bio-availability when taken orally, meaning that if you swallow it in pill form, it hits you immediately, as alcohol would, so there is no need to inject it. It is also hyper-addictive, it is so powerful that after only one or two doses, your body behaves as if you are withdrawing from years of heroin use. You are immediately physically addicted. And after even a few weeks, you are so far gone that the changes to the brain are essentially irreversible as far as I can tell, and you are stuck in a permanent state of withdraw, from which your only hope of escape would be suicide. Because of this severe issue, the chemical is only used in end of life palliative care, in the Netherlands. Go to the libraries and find the 1960’s-1980’s profiles on research chemicals, the writeups for synthesis are provided. The synthesis is non-trivial, but possible, without the multi million dollar labs needed for other pharms. I’m not stating the name of the chemical, I only wish to say that: it exists. As do 1,000 strange substances that have not been produced for many decades and are quite forgotten.
Understand you in regard to what set of conflicted behaviors in what particular context relating to the explicit/implicit protections of what rights pertaining to what assumptions underlying a particular constitutional philosophy?
Or is that not what serious philosophers pursue on this thread?
yes
Doesn’t surprise me. So, sure, by all means, carry on. =D>
I deleted the video where I was talking and replaced it with this… which has les than nothing to do with this context.
Iambiguous, you’re such a wimp, lol
Right, I’m a wimp for not going up into the stratosphere of intellectual contraptions largely devoid of any use or exchange value for men and women actually confronting particular protections relating to particular contexts relating to a particular constitutional philosophy, while Parodites sustains the courage necessary to do battle with those who do not share his own definitional logic up in the technical clouds of abstraction.
In much the same way [given my own discussions with you] you manage to defend value ontology. At least the part not derived directly “from the stars”.
Pick one:
Maybe you’re brave for being so transparent about not being capable of being substantive – on the other hand, it takes an IQ like mine, apparently, to understand that you’re being transparent.
Brave and transparent in regard to what particular set of circumstances in which conflicts erupt in regard to the rationality of any one particular constitutional philosophy.
Say, for example, the U.S. Constitution in regard to protections afforded…as this pertains to a citizen’s right to bear arms.
At what point in this discussion does it become foolish [and technically inappropriate] for a serious philosopher to go?
Or is this now just an exchange of quips and retorts between us?
Pick one:
Unfortunately it does take intellectual ‘contraptions’ to decipher the Constitution, as the founders were particularly influenced by stratospheric achievements to overcome the binds to the otherwise overwhelingly formidable established rules of conduct.
Okay, someone reads this and ponders the extent to which, if true, it actually does impact on how he thinks about the implicit protections the U.S. Constitution affords him in regard to his rights as a citizen to bear arms. Lots and lots and lots of them in fact. Including hand grenades and artillery pieces. Even chemical and biological devices.
Which constitutional philosophy reflects the most rational – virtuous? – set of assumptions here?
This is a very complex question which is tantamount to the relation between what that man thinks of Constitutional protections , as reflected within communities of law enforcement( not excluding the myriad of structural agents: ranging from the cop, through the soldier , the intelligence, all the way up and including the trier of facts, the plaintiffs, defenders, lawyers and judges.
As it stands, the rule is of reasonable engagement, when the life, liberty and the justice of a member of that group is threatened.
Between the contraptions, that brought about a transcendent reason by which the question of casual relations are established between that thought and the impact it has upon reasonable men, can only be arrived at by the reflection upon what is a reasonable man can gather.
Most of the time there is a dissolve or a lack of continuity between the ‘contraptions’ and that reflection, simply because transcending the contraptions is not within that part of the continuum of reasonableness .
That is why, for instance, that what bearer of a kind of weapon is appropriate given certain situations is determinative only on a qualitative assessment.
For instance, an average reasonable man may not see , that to overcome a knife attack, he should not use guns or even grenades defensively.
Or, could not understand the idea, that to defend against burglary he may not be warranted to kill the burger, if he appears unarmed, and liability may occur for such a situation.
There is some measure of relative disconnect between the contraption( which really is a transcendental generalization, and the specific impacted upon understanding of that .
This is why not interpretation has to bring home connections between the intent, and the letter of the law.
Intent is more related to frames of mind, while the letter spells out the complex states which can determine it’s reasonabless.
More and more framers of the Constitution are questioned as to their intent, to determine applicability to certain situations.
How could freedom be said to have been extolled by Jefferson, when he was a slave holder?
I would contend that it is a simple matter.
The first amendment is a declaration of war against what had previously been the ruling order. It says: citizens have rights to their values, and to the free expression of them, and to not have values imposed on them.
How is this right to be guaranteed?
The founding fathers realized there is only one way to guarantee ones freedom to ones values from all hypothetical forces that may try to take this liberty; power of force.
So, naturally from the first amendment, the second amendment follows.
By this logic, citizens have to be allowed equally powerful weaponry as the state.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72SwuWhLG-U[/youtube]
Great day for America, great day for mankind.
Freedom prevails.
…but you edited out his cute laugh, his laugh like bae bae… his childlike giggle.
I’m no empath, and I eschew the empathetic, but this… this I feel greatly over, and the video… everything.
In regard to the op…
The Future of Constitutional Reform
Better to refrain from undertaking a programme of comprehensive constitutional reform, but instead consider making limited changes to address weaknesses in constitutional arrangements that have been exposed by current political processes, that show that they are obviously not working anymore.
Nice. Well I put it in, … no?
I did cut it off but sometimes you have to do that for full effect.
We were shooting a rather lugubrious film and shit kept going wrong. He was playing some kind of stern evil wizard but kept laughing. We had that a lot. Was good.
That laugh, that was true liberty.
Losing that reference point in life was bleak. Still is. Only Pezer comes close to being as genuinely appreciative of the funny stuff.
I’m glad I got to hear it, so thanks. 
Haha yeah, being on set is a pleasure to be privy to and experience… the amount of bonding that goes on behind the camera, when the boredom of endless resets and actions sets in, is a welcome reprieve from it.
Oh! I love that the laugh is back 
I went into a meltdown too, last week… feeling sorry for myself, and then thinking that if He were here, then anything and all things wouldn’t seem as bad… or half as bad at least.
I cannot keep doing this to myself, and yet… I cannot seem to stop. 