lemm.ee

1 point

7 days ago

I am high as Giraffe pussy right now.

Your argument is invalid.

report

[ - ]

Dasus@lemmy.world

-1 points

7 days ago

That’s a bit like saying “I can’t be racist, I’m black”. I know there are people who believe it, but it doesn’t make it true, does it?

I answered your points, but all you keep doing is larping an intellectual. Why did you ask for 10 books on the subject? Because you wanted to know if the situation is as I say it is. I link a book saying it definitely is. You have a tantrum.

So you definitely agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted, for the good of society?

report

[ - ]

1 point

7 days ago

That’s a bit like saying “I can’t be racist, I’m black”. I know there are people who believe it, but it doesn’t make it true, does it?

Actually it is a bit like saying you threw a tantrum over questions you couldn’t answer and assumed I was pro drug prohibition because of it.

You know what they say about assuming right?

I answered your points, but all you keep doing is larping an intellectual. Why did you ask for 10 books on the subject? Because you wanted to know if the situation is as I say it is. I link a book saying it definitely is. You have a tantrum.

You haven’t answered my questions, as I wasn’t making points.

That is another failure of perception based on your defensive demeanor, caused by the aforementioned tantrum and assumptions. The amount of projection and mental gymnastics you are doing to make me out to be you is humorous.

So you definitely agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted, for the good of society?

No, I don’t agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society. Just like I do not agree that prohibition of all drugs must be in place for the good of society. Both statements are equally asinine.

What I do believe is drugs should be available for use by consenting adults in a heavily regulated market coupled with intense social safety nets to deal with drug use related problems.

Edit this thread is a case in point. Not one single explanation, just people absolutely terrified out of their minds, parroting bad propaganda and even worse rhetoric. “I don’t want my surgeon tripping when he’s operating on me.” And I don’t want my surgeon drunk, and alcohol is legal, and I’ve never had the issue, because surgeons don’t come to work drunk.

Genuinely, I’m tired of answering these “arguments” and no-one will accept how afraid they are, even when not a single soul can explain why.

This edit is hilarious as well. Made especially funny by the fact that no one is arguing for drug prohibition.

You got an answer to your question "Why is society so afraid of people purposefully altering their mental state? (In terms of cannabis, psychedelics, anything “mind-expanding.)”, and me asking you questions.

Not once was a pro prohibition argument made against you, yet you keep hammering that nail like everyone is against you.

You should address the victim mentality, need to attack and demean others to make points, and inability to listen to another persons point if you want to have more success communicating with others.

report

[ - ]

Dasus@lemmy.world

-1 points

7 days ago

Except I did answer your questions. Address the first book I’ve given, and then we’ll talk about nine others, mkay? Or was there perhaps zero reason for you to ask them, because you were asking in bad faith and had no response to when me offering actual literature as an answer, and now you’re just pissy about it?

No, I don’t agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society

Then you’re either ignorant of the subject, or directly benefitting from the prohibition. There’s simply no other alternative. The prohibition of drugs is harmful to society.

What I do believe is drugs should be available for use by consenting adults in a heavily regulated market coupled with intense social safety nets to deal with drug use related problems.

That is them being legal. I never said “unrestricted access to any drug”, did I? (But you won’t have the same asinine literal criteria for your own arguments as you’re trying to do with mine, showing yet another measure of pretentiousness.)

This edit is hilarious as well. Made especially funny by the fact that no one is arguing for drug prohibition.

You’re arguing against the facts of the matter, and now pretending like you don’t know that you’ve only now stated your opinion on the matter, and clearly argued against me, who made his stance very clear. You’re just so pretentious it twists my stomach.

report

[ - ]

0 points

6 days ago

It is really funny to me that you keep cherry picking my responses. It is even more funny that you believe I am arguing against “the facts of the matter”.

I never said “unrestricted access to any drug”, did I?

So you definitely agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted, for the good of society?

What do you believe is the difference between “Prohibition of all drugs to be lifted” and “unrestricted access to any drug”?

Last I checked prohibition means “to prohibit”, or in other words “to restrict”, so a lack of prohibition is a lack of restriction. In your own words “Prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society”.

To quote you, to you.

You’d rather chew your own leg off than answer my question from the previous comment. That’s how strong the propaganda is, and I don’t know why it affects you so much.

I will pose my questions one more time.

Did you ever stop to think that the propaganda you speak of is directly influenced by exactly what steeznson was speaking about?

Why do you believe that anti-drug propaganda only began in the 20th century?

Do you have anything other than wikipedia links to back your stance up? Say, a real study done on the impacts of anti-drug propaganda through the ages which demonstrates that the 20th century was the most militant with it?

Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?

I am most interested in your answer on the last question regarding religion, because you have dodged that one completely while merely touching on the others in your rants.

Is it because to acknowledge religions influence on drug prohibition is to acknowledge that you are wrong about anti drug propaganda “technically” starting in the 20th century just like electricity was “technically” discovered by ancient Greeks?

You’re just so pretentious it twists my stomach.

You should really read that link I commented about “projection”.

report

[ - ]

steeznson@lemmy.world

2 points

6 days ago

Man you had a lot more effort to dedicate to this guy than me lol

I wonder when he’ll realise that everyone he’s been rude to was basically agreeing with him

report

[ - ]

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

2 points

6 days ago

More time than effort on my part. You know you have nothing going on when interacting with a person like that is a reasonable way to kill time. lol

I’m not sure they ever will realize that. We probably wound up being posted on some anti drug prohibition forum with a “see what I have to deal with?” title and a lot of circle jerking. haha

report

[ - ]

-1 points

6 days ago

No, he’s not agreeing with me.

You don’t understand the propaganda.

Do you think that if everyone who agreed on cannabis being mostly harmless, we’d still have cannabis prohibition? Ofc not.

And cannabis isn’t even causing the most harm. We can actually get rid of drug cartels and make hundreds of billions of dollars in tax money by legalising drugs, but the efforts to do so are slowed by fucknuts like you and him who don’t realise that you can slow something down even when you pretend to agree with it.

report

[ - ]

1 point

6 days ago

What do you believe is the difference between “Prohibition of all drugs to be lifted” and “unrestricted access to any drug”?

You should check a dictionary. A prohibition is when something is illegal to sell. Do you think if something isn’t illegal, it’s unrestricted? Why would you think that?

You’d rather chew your own leg off than answer my question from the previous comment. That’s how strong the propaganda is, and I don’t know why it affects you so much.

I will pose my questions one more time.

And I stand by that.

I’ve answered your questions, but you’re not asking them for any reason. You’re pretending to ask them for a reason. Honestly, what are you, like, 20? This is insanely childish.

#Show me drug propaganda from the 19th century please. I’ll wait right here. You will desperately google some, but the only thing you’ll find from the 19th century is drug adverts, not propaganda. There are a few cases in history of so called vice laws, but prohibition =/= drug propaganda. Perhaps you didn’t realise that, huh?

Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?

I do yes. You do not.

Why did you ask for me to mention ten books when you can’t address a single one that I name? Perhaps because you’re a sort of silly little boy who’s pretending to know a lot about something they don’t, thinking that because they’ve smoked weed, they’re not “against the prohibition”, while actively fighting it.

Anyone supporting the prohibition of drugs is acting against the well-being of society in general. That’s an indisputable fact I can and have backed with peer-reviewed studies.

edit oh that’s a fun comment about “projection” from some teen who thinks he “wins” debates by saying “that’s a fallacy” as if you’ve ever opened a philosophy book :DD let alone understood the first thing about psychology. you’ve tried your teenage gotchas several times and i’ve shown you how much of a tit you were being and wow, you instantly stop with the argument I made you feel stupid about.

report

[ - ]

0 points

6 days ago

Why did you ask for me to mention ten books when you can’t address a single one that I name?

You never named 10 books, while I provided a source for over 200.
The purpose was to see what you are reading so I can know what you know. It is not a “gotcha”. You claimed to be well read so it shouldn’t be hard to list off a few books on a topic you also claim to know a lot about.

Perhaps because you’re a sort of silly little boy who’s pretending to know a lot about something they don’t, thinking that because they’ve smoked weed, they’re not “against the prohibition”, while actively fighting it.

Oh look! More projection! I do have to say your one trick pony show is beginning to get boring.

Anyone supporting the prohibition of drugs is acting against the well-being of society in general. That’s an indisputable fact I can and have backed with peer-reviewed studies.

So you keep saying, and yet I have never made a claim otherwise.

edit oh that’s a fun comment about “projection” from some teen who thinks he “wins” debates by saying “that’s a fallacy” as if you’ve ever opened a philosophy book :DD let alone understood the first thing about psychology. you’ve tried your teenage gotchas several times and i’ve shown you how much of a tit you were being and wow, you instantly stop with the argument I made you feel stupid about.

You should probably stop serial editing everyone of your comments. Nothing screams “Chronically online edge lord” quite like constant edits. (As well as commenting on every other comment in this thread, whether it was directed at you or not.)

All in all you need to up your game. Go back to your echo chamber and complain about all the stupid people who just “don’t get it” so you can tucker yourself out for a little nap. I think you need it.

report