Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3331
i think you should check a drug-dependency chart. weed does not involve 'dependency' and 'compulsion' for 99% of healthy individuals (i.e. those without pre-existing mental conditions).

and yes, my upper/downer comment was about drug addicts or people that take extreme substances like crack/meth. that changes behaviour. that quotation was taken from a paragraph about people whose "reward pathways" have been "overtaken". hardly applicable to a 17 year old that smokes weed. a LOT of teenagers smoke weed, dilbert. this may shock you. they are not out in the streets, scratching at welts and boils, shivering in the sickly pale dawns of the world.

"after a weekend of tripping?" what are you talking about? he had a trace of THC in his bloodstream. now it's a "weekend of tripping?" i don't know many weed-smokers that will engage in a weekend of 'tripping'. you trip on LSD or DMT or a hallucinogen/psychedelic. of which, actually, they are the least toxic and least harmful substances to metabolize of the lot. all you feel after a "weekend of tripping" is tired, because your brain has been at high-functioning activity for a while, and you've likely not got much sleep, or eaten much. so you feel tired and hungry. not mentally unstable. after a "weekend of tripping", you go to sleep for about 12 hours. then you are, yes, 'fully functioning and normal'. this may surprise you.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Drug_danger_and_dependence.png

'shades of grey' in trayvon's deplorable weed 'dependency'. "prone to fight and act irrational" because of his "craving" for his "next fix". look at all the legal substances above weed or the 'tripping' category drugs for 'dependency'. do you incriminate someone psycho-physiologically for being 'withdrawn' from nicotine? no? well then there goes your pseudo-scientific, faux-medical line of 'argument'.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-25 06:23:10)

Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|3272|Oklahoma


He speaks the truth.  The only reason people give a shit or argue about this shit is because it's entertaining.  No one fucking cares about Trayvon.  No one REALLY cares about Zimmerman.  All anyone cares about is that it's buzzworthy.

Things I promise you:

1. In 3-5 years no one will remember who Trayvon or Zimmerman were.
2. There will be no law change in Florida.
3. It will happen again.
4. People will continue to not give a shit about the thousands of other kids that get killed.
5. The media will continue to not report on minority on minority crime and focus only on interracial bullshit.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,924|5849|USA

See, the thing is for me...

1. As I understand it, Zimmerman's supporters denying the possibility of a retrial are ignoring the possibility of new evidence coming to light. And by new evidence I don't mean because of political or media pressure.

2. I don't give a shit about the race issue aspect of this particular case simply because it's so pandemic and omnidirectional in the US. I am more concerned with the gun issue.
a) We're saturated with race on race violence that doesn't get reported, so it's hard to give a shit about Martin vs Zimmerman over all the others.
b) I have no problem with self-defense with firearms, but there is a morally and ethically bankrupt mindset among some gun owners where they are pining for the chance to find themselves in a situation where they are 'forced' to shoot and kill someone. Some of those people even enjoy talking about the chance, like they're gleefully chatting with their friends about bagging or getting to bag a deer. Their manic anticipation makes them unnerving individuals to be around.

3. Regardless of the trial outcome, Zimmerman was wrong in what he did. He played cop into a potentially confrontational situation as an aggressor figure with a gun at his side. That means he walked into this prepared to shoot. That's why I think he's an asshole. And the bit with him pulling people out of an overturned vehicle or whatever? Well, Charles Manson could help an old woman across the street, but he'd still give me the heebie jeebies.

4. How can you watch that meathead yell at his webcam? The thumbnail says it all.
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|3272|Oklahoma

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

See, the thing is for me...

1. As I understand it, Zimmerman's supporters denying the possibility of a retrial are ignoring the possibility of new evidence coming to light. And by new evidence I don't mean because of political or media pressure.
Double jeopardy.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

2. I don't give a shit about the race issue aspect of this particular case simply because it's so pandemic and omnidirectional in the US. I am more concerned with the gun issue.
Bullshit.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

a) We're saturated with race on race violence that doesn't get reported, so it's hard to give a shit about Martin vs Zimmerman over all the others.
What?  How can we be saturated with something that doesn't get reported?  Wouldn't that make it easier to give a shit about Martin and Zimmerman?  All of the minority on minority violence never reported distracted me from the trial on the news 24/7?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

b) I have no problem with self-defense with firearms, but there is a morally and ethically bankrupt mindset among some gun owners where they are pining for the chance to find themselves in a situation where they are 'forced' to shoot and kill someone. Some of those people even enjoy talking about the chance, like they're gleefully chatting with their friends about bagging or getting to bag a deer. Their manic anticipation makes them unnerving individuals to be around.
Yes, everyone who owns a gun is evil.  I take all 15 of my guns out at night in a big sack just hoping a gang of hoodlums attacks me so I can bag me a coon.  The sentence you wrote is so overwhelmingly stupid and ignorant I'm not entirely sure how to respond to it.  When you say "some" you really mean "everyone".

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

3. Regardless of the trial outcome, Zimmerman was wrong in what he did.
Wrong.  He was absolutely correct in what he did.  He may have been wrong for getting out of the car, but he was 100% correct in shooting Martin.  Unfortunately for you guys, getting out of the car wasn't a crime and any criminal intent he may have had by getting out he wasn't tried on.  Blame the prosecutors for being shit at their job.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

He played cop into a potentially confrontational situation as an aggressor figure with a gun at his side. That means he walked into this prepared to shoot. That's why I think he's an asshole.
See, this is the stupid shit I'm referring to up above.  Every person with a concealed carry is prepared to shoot, THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT.  If you weren't prepared to shoot someone you wouldn't be carrying around a fucking gun.  If you are following someone you THINK is a criminal and you ain't wearing a badge.......you aren't being an aggressor, you're just being a dumbass.  If Zimmerman would have walked in as an aggressor ready to shoot, he would have shot Martin as he ran towards him, 30 fucking feet away.  I assure you he wouldn't have waited until he was getting his skull curb checked. 

Do you people ever even try to draw a logical line between point a or point b or do you guys just spurt out the first random shit to pop into your head?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

And the bit with him pulling people out of an overturned vehicle or whatever? Well, Charles Manson could help an old woman across the street, but he'd still give me the heebie jeebies.
George Zimmerman, a man acquitted in a self defense case = Charles Manson, convicted serial killer and confirmed lunatic.

Great analogy.  Tell me more about how Justin Bieber = Michelangelo

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

4. How can you watch that meathead yell at his webcam? The thumbnail says it all.
My attention span is longer than 5 minutes and I know how to work the volume.








Also, are you drunk?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,924|5849|USA

2a) When I say race on race I'm not talking about neither black on black violence in Chicago. I'm talking about black on white, white on black, etc.

2b) I own a gun. In fact, I own multiple guns. I've said so several times on this forum already. So no, I don't think all gun owners are evil, as you so sarcastically imply. But I don't like hanging around people who gleefully anticipate having to defend themselves. It's creepy. They're creepy. And if you do the same (which I hope you don't), you're creepy. When I say some, I mean some. Don't be a dolt about it. And tucking a gun away to go play tough guy make-believe cop is at the same mental level as a kid keeping nunchaku in his back pocket to pretend he's a street tough. Or a ninja turtle. Real badass with his MMA training, too. I wonder if he thought he was like a superhero. TURTLE POWER!

3 pt1) No, I'm right and you know it. Do you think Neighborhood Watch, the police or a 9/11 call center actually wanted George to continue stalking this kid so "another punk didn't get away?" Was he rooted on? I didn't think so. His moral supporters largely seem to consist of the types of individuals I described in 2b.

3 pt2) That's not the point. Sure, if I carry a gun, I'm prepared to shoot to defend myself. But there's a big fucking difference between being caught out in a parking lot following after-dark grocery shopping and following a kid around because you don't like the looks of him. Stop pretending that George Zimmerman was a guileless pedestrian. He put himself there. I wouldn't expect any public sympathy if I was a big enough moron/fruitcake to do the same thing.

3 pt3) Conviction or acquittal isn't relevant to my analogy. What is is that a good deed does not overturn a bad one.

4) There's nothing wrong with my attention span, but I'm not going to waste it watching a guy shout into his webcam. I could turn the volume down to a whisper and he'd still be annoying. And the related videos that popped up are pretty much all of him hamming it up. The only thing he could do to make it worse is to get an extreme fisheye lens.




Drunk? WTF are you on.
Roc18
`
+655|4868|PROLLLY PROLLLY PROLLLY

Extra Medium wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZX197OI … e=youtu.be

He speaks the truth.  The only reason people give a shit or argue about this shit is because it's entertaining.  No one fucking cares about Trayvon.  No one REALLY cares about Zimmerman.  All anyone cares about is that it's buzzworthy.

Things I promise you:

1. In 3-5 years no one will remember who Trayvon or Zimmerman were.
2. There will be no law change in Florida.
3. It will happen again.
4. People will continue to not give a shit about the thousands of other kids that get killed.
5. The media will continue to not report on minority on minority crime and focus only on interracial bullshit.
This is what I've been saying since last year.
13rin
Member
+977|5556
It is all politics now and about revving up the voter base for interim elections. 

This thread is checkers to their chess.  Shit load of pawns abound too.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|3272|Oklahoma

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

2b) And tucking a gun away to go play tough guy make-believe cop is at the same mental level as a kid keeping nunchaku in his back pocket to pretend he's a street tough..
I'd say being on neighborhood watch would be THE ONE TIME I would make sure I was carrying a concealed weapon.  You are literally watching for bad guys, meaning you accept the possibility you may be confronted by one.

Can't be fucked to type any more this late.
Roc18
`
+655|4868|PROLLLY PROLLLY PROLLLY
I feel like someone's going to make a Trayvon Martin movie.

Last edited by Roc18 (2013-07-25 22:39:42)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,924|5849|USA

Extra Medium wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

2b) And tucking a gun away to go play tough guy make-believe cop is at the same mental level as a kid keeping nunchaku in his back pocket to pretend he's a street tough..
I'd say being on neighborhood watch would be THE ONE TIME I would make sure I was carrying a concealed weapon.  You are literally watching for bad guys, meaning you accept the possibility you may be confronted by one.

Can't be fucked to type any more this late.
Are you fucking kidding me? You're not supposed to go around chasing suspicious individuals around the neighborhood. Call it in and go the fuck home.

Stupid counter-argument. "If I go out looking for trouble and I'm not authorized to do so, I'd still make sure to bring a gun. It's the only way to stay safe because I couldn't exactly, you know, NOT stalk every suspicious 'punk' I come across."
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|5767|Tampa Bay Florida
Yep, it's all just one giant media conspiracy.  "The blacks" would have just ignored it like the good little docile people they are if Al Sharpton hadn't come along and ruined everything.

Last edited by Spearhead (2013-07-25 23:14:00)

Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|5767|Tampa Bay Florida

Extra Medium wrote:

Wrong.  He was absolutely correct in what he did.  He may have been wrong for getting out of the car, but he was 100% correct in shooting Martin.  Unfortunately for you guys, getting out of the car wasn't a crime and any criminal intent he may have had by getting out he wasn't tried on.  Blame the prosecutors for being shit at their job.
Two things :

1. You're wrong.  You have no way of knowing he was 100 percent correct in shooting Martin.  He could have been approaching Martin, brandishing his gun.  At that point, he would have been asking for his head to be slammed into the concrete.  I love the fact that you said this, it shows half the stuff you posted in this thread is bullshit.  Zimmermans entire defense is predicated on the fact that we don't know, and never will know, exactly how it went down -- and here you are, coming back with this shit.  Why weren't you saying this 100 percent stuff one month ago?  Oh shit, because you would have been wrong and looked like the moron you really are.

2.  Fuck off with this "unfortunately for you guys" shit.  You were the one who was gleefully jumping up and down with a hard one anticipating a not guilty verdict.  The rest of us?  "Huh, that's weird"  A 29 year old armed neighborhood watch kills an unarmed 17 year old.  "These fuckers get away".  No one has addressed the FACTS OF THE CASE.  They always go to "uh drugs" or "he was a murderous violent nigger, look at his twitter" or "HAHAHA look at his NIGGER GIRLFRIEND!" 

If the same had happened to your kid, you'd be starting a violent revolution at this point.

Last edited by Spearhead (2013-07-25 23:26:22)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,752|5183|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

and yes, my upper/downer comment was about drug addicts or people that take extreme substances like crack/meth. that changes behaviour.
No, it was about any upper
if it's an upper, a stimulant, anything that gets you 'buzzing', then afterwards you will feel down, drained, morose
'shades of grey' in trayvon's deplorable weed 'dependency'. "prone to fight and act irrational" because of his "craving" for his "next fix". look at all the legal substances above weed or the 'tripping' category drugs for 'dependency'. do you incriminate someone psycho-physiologically for being 'withdrawn' from nicotine? no? well then there goes your pseudo-scientific, faux-medical line of 'argument'.
We've already established linkage between THC and aggression, plus it seems he has a history of aggression, if he has historically used other drugs also, which supposedly he has, you don't know what his state of mind was.
You're not Timothy Leary, you're not a neuro-scientist, you're another kid who got high at college.
Bad luck if your theory that drugs are great and only make people more wonderful doesn't really fly.
Bad luck also that the average juror is not going to side with a drug user with a history of violence.
#FreeBritney
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|4255|Sydney
Aggressive whilst under the influence of THC?

Erm, no.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,752|5183|eXtreme to the maX
Is that what I said?

Nope.
#FreeBritney
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3331
where did i say "drugs only make people wonderful?" drugs are as harmful as you want to make them. i have had both incredible and awful experiences on them. stop maligning me as some college-stoner that wants to 'legalize all the drugs, maaaan', or thinks 'drugs are cool'. i think drugs are a fascinating and complex part of life: no black/white answers or simple reductions - which is ALL YOU ARE CAPABLE OF DOING on the topic.

yes, i invoked the basic principle of homeostasis when it comes to taking uppers. what goes up, must come down. however the upper you take and the quantity obviously implies the effect. people after coffee can feel a little tired or grouchy. people after a red-bull, a few hours later, feel like they want to nap or yawn a lot. people talk about 'sugar crashing': the principle is no different. you would have to be taking some pretty fucking amped-up speed or crack cocaine or some such to have a 'downer' severe enough to make you want to beat someone to death, or be aggressive. weed has nowhere near as extreme an effect on your psyche as even things like caffeine/nicotine. so your argument falls apart. that is all i have said. stop putting words in my mouth, saying i claim all drugs make people wonderful. i never said that. i am saying you are trying to put 'edgy addict' behaviour on a kid that was on a substance that is neither addictive nor edgy. you know, simple facts. things like that. sorry this is so difficult for you.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,752|5183|eXtreme to the maX
I haven't said he was an 'edgy addict' or that he 'deserved to die for smoking weed', just that drug use affects behaviour and changes personalities (just as you claim alcohol does) as shown in the Dutch study linking THC use with aggression.

Habitual drug users tend to be more edgy, antsy, paranoid and aggressive than the average non-user, they're not 100% back to normal on a Monday morning by any stretch the effects can last a long time and can change personality. THC is far from the awesome harmless cure-all people like to think.
Thats my anecdotal experience, and the experience of various professionals I've discussed it with, and supported by various studies, the exact mechanism I don't claim to know.
#FreeBritney
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3331
you can't just say "habitual drug users are more edgy". that is a generalisation encompassing all drugs from stimulants to opiates to analgesics to hallucinogens. it just doesn't follow. you cannot make blanket statements like that about drug users. it is non-sensical. it's a huge category error. people who smoke weed rarely ever become 'ansty or aggressive' when they are not smoking weed. it is not a drug with a strong physical or mental dependency (check the chart at the top of this page; unless you would say coffee drinkers become paranoid and antsy when without a cup, then it makes NO SENSE).

oh and to your "you're not a neuroscientist,  you're just a college kid who got high" crap: i never claimed to be a neuroscientist. i'm just someone that has a pretty decent amount of experience with and around drug-users. compared to the inane shit you guys prattle about above (like the 'intelligent' EM's claim that all drug users are "addicts" or "junkies"), i'm just providing a voice of reason. you have to use really dishonest rhetorical tactics and say i am claiming "drugs are cool" or "drugs make people awesome" to try and dismiss my commonsensical, medically grounded arguments. which says a lot. i have never misrepresented drugs or claimed they are something they are not. however i will interject to correct your ludicrous pandering to the "drugs make people insane and aggressive" shit. 90% of casual drug users are high-functioning adults and pursue ordinary, successful lives. that goes for everything: from lawyers/bankers with cocaine, to office workers toking weed, to the more adventurous who want to experiment with mind-altering LSD/psychedelic trips. you guys try to portray anyone who crosses that line of legality as a zombie or a shivering wreck or an aggressive animal or some sort of life-ruined junkie. it's laughable.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-26 04:35:31)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,752|5183|eXtreme to the maX
There are complete classes of drugs well known to "make people insane and aggressive".

In the case of THC there seems to be solid evidence linking use to aggression, for other drugs - I guess we'll see what the effects of messing with brain chemistry outside a lab are.

As for your chart, LSD appears pretty safe, are you going to say LSD has never fucked anyone up? I thought you concluded Macbeth went through a personality change after using it.
#FreeBritney
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3331
LSD is completely safe. it is the least toxic substance you can put in your body. there are herbs and spices you put on your food that give your body's organic balance a harder time (nutmeg is actually incredibly toxic). talk of people 'going insane' on LSD is, as i said earlier in this thread, mostly the sort of horror-story hangovers from the 70's, when a lot of fearmongering was done about psychedelics (and furthermore when people were taking them heavily, and far too frequently). a lot of people take acid and 99% of them are fine. more people in the UK take acid than take crack cocaine or crystal meth. as with all psychoactive drugs, there will always be the miniscule % of people with pre-existing mental health conditions, or who are not in a good place or stable, and that psychoactive experience will affect them negatively. is this the drug's fault? no. i am not denying LSD has driven people crazy. weed has provoked paranoid-schizophrenic episodes in people with pre-existing. alcohol has led people on sprees of domestic violence. drugs, or any substance - legal or otherwise - that changes your mental constitution obviously has the chance of unsettling some pre-existing ugliness. again: if you want to trip 4 times a week when it's more advisable to trip once every 3 months, that's your personal choice (or rather macbeth's). don't make out the drug is inherently 'dangerous' because some people are irresponsible with their consumption or mental wellbeing.

LSD however is, organically and chemically, completely harmonious with your body. it is not toxic like alcohol is. it isn't a poison that your body battles with for a week after to metabolize and flush out. it has zero addictive potential. yet people who fear-monger about LSD continually, because of the few tales you hear about some person in the 70's who leapt from a building (which then gets repeated in every drugs-education classroom, forever and anon)-- but they'll blithely drink alcohol that does actual tissue damage to their brain and liver, and they'll casually smoke cigarettes and consume sugar-rich diets, perfectly happy with the fact they are dependent on several substances for their day-to-day lives. okay. i find that funny. as for the 1% that go mad on mind-altering drugs... well, there's a miniscule percentage of people that take things too far in every facet of life. i'm not going to avoid driving a car because 1% of people speed and kill themselves.

oh and in what area of science does one dutch study == 'conclusive evidence'? especially in biology or psychology? that's a funny one. for a scientist you are surprisingly lax when the findings compliment your bias.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-26 04:51:56)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,752|5183|eXtreme to the maX
And yet LSD is right at the bottom in terms of dependence and risk.
#FreeBritney
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3331
"and yet"? i just said LSD is completely harmless. where's the "and yet" coming from? if you are sound-minded and psychologically stable, LSD will not do you any harm. even if, for whatever reason - bad environment, an unfortunate turn - you have a 'bad trip', it will not effect your mental health or wellbeing. it may be an unpleasant or interesting few hours, but it won't leave you with 'damage'.

it seems to me you just typically fear that what you don't understand, and haven't tried. your portrayal of weed as some anger-inducing witch-herb makes it obvious you've never even toked once in your life. that's fine, there's no requirement to... but jesus, your scaremongering sounds silly, coming from a supposedly rational scientist. let people be. people can take drugs without devolving into mindless zombies.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-26 04:54:09)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,752|5183|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

"and yet"? i just said LSD is completely harmless.

UTL wrote:

i am not denying LSD has driven people crazy.
it seems to me you just typically fear that what you don't understand, and haven't tried
Nope, I'm going on the available evidence, anecdotal, published papers, etc.
I don't need to try THC, LSD or crystal meth to know its not good for anyone.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-07-26 04:57:00)

#FreeBritney
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3331
do you even read my fucking posts? yes, in the entire 100 year history of LSD, i am not denying it has given some mentally unstable people a rough time and driven them over the brink. i'm just conceding that because you seem determined to bring it up. as with EVERYTHING, it has ruined some people's lives. do you avoid drinking because alcohol has ruined so many lives? no? then what is your fucking point? jesus. the fact is that LSD is healthier for the 99% of able-minded people than alcohol. yet you'll poison yourself drinking a few times a week, and not think twice about it. all the while fretting over the 1% of people who have triggered psychotic episodes on LSD. do you remind yourself how many families and lives have been ruined by alcohol addiction or drunk-driving accidents every time you open a brew? no? well then jesus fucking christ, GET A POINT.

lol "not good for anyone" (as if you can even conflate LSD and crystal meth in the same category-- category error, yet again, you're good at these mr. scientist). the VAST MAJORITY of drug-users have FULLY FUNCTIONING lives. jesus "not good for anyone". you do things that aren't 'good for you' all the time. eating too much ice-cream. not working out. not getting enough sleep. christ. leave people be. stop portraying them as dangerous or zombies because they do things you aren't interested in. it is not rational.

also LSD was clinically approved (like MDMA) for psychological treatment and counseling. "not good for anyone?" you are talking pure shit. just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it can't have any positive or beneficial use. you are a moron.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-26 05:14:05)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,752|5183|eXtreme to the maX
The point is that given Trayvon Martin had illegal drugs in his system and a track record of violence you can't claim he was the poor pure innocent preyed on by the evil drooling gun-toting maniac you see in Zimmerman.

No doubt if Zimmerman had been a drunk redneck you'd have had fun with that, why is it unacceptable to mention Martin's illegal drug use and the possible consequences?
#FreeBritney

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard