Religious Practice and "Drugs"

[MaskedOne]

Re: Religious Practice and "Drugs"

Nah Medusa, I'm still looking for popcorn. I intending to fully enjoy this show.

[Gardenia]

Re: Religious Practice and "Drugs"

I hope you mean this in an 'I've been screwed over by women in the past and therefore don't trust them' way and not a sexist way.

It's sexist either way you look at it. Being screwed over by a woman in the past doesn't excuse such a sweeping statement against all women.

[Gallifrey]

Re: Religious Practice and "Drugs"

Dear Ramses, I think you've mostly clarified yourself talking to Medusa, so if you like you can skip by me because I think you have more pressing things to worry about at the mo'... a little bit. omg dude I honestly can't believe you went there

[Zephyranth]

Re: Religious Practice and "Drugs"

It's sexist either way you look at it. Being screwed over by a woman in the past doesn't excuse such a sweeping statement against all women.

Oh I most certainly agree. Totally inappropriate. If it was a joke, it was a sick joke. If he's serious... I'm just going to trail off there.

[Ramses II]

Re: Religious Practice and "Drugs"

I will come back and respond to this post more properly but I will say the following for now.

You're trying to tell me you need marijuana to function normally, and then you tell me you're not addicted. Isn't that the definition of an addiction? Or are you retracting the former statement? Which is it: do you "need" it or do you not?

I believe that's my fault with the specific wording that I chose to use. I do not need marijuana to function normally nor am I addicted. I said the following to Medusa:

Ach so, indeed, I probably should have worded that better or rather just omitted the part of needing it to get through the day. My main point was some people need coffee in the morning and throughout the day, I just use a different product though I don't need it. Only thing I do "need," is good pipe baccy. My mistake though, clearly.

For the first three studies, I concede those all are valid. And as stated previously, I don't deny there are some benefits for people with serious conditions - but that doesn't really apply here, because, as I also said, I've been talking about an average recreational user whose usage is not necessitated by a severe disease.

I would say it's not necessarily about whether someone is using it in a recreational, medical or spiritual setting just for the simple fact that everyone uses everything for a variety of different reasons. My main point, is that, it's not as harmful as we have been led to believe, there is no reason as to why it should be illegal at all, period.

And if you take offense to my hypothesis, do you have one of your own to counter with? Or are you just... offended?

I'm not offended whatsoever, I mean, come on, I'm a salesman, I deal with all sorts of people and things all the time. This is just a pleasant debate to me, really. But to answer your question, yes, yes I do.

You keep saying that this was missing the point, but you don't clarify. I mean, it sounds as if you're brushing us off - "Oh, you're missing the point." If every single person here is missing the point, then it's on you to clarify, because this indicates you weren't clear about your point in the first place. So if I've missed it, what is your point?

Simply that's it not what you consume or if you need it but rather how much you consume and the frequency.

And honestly... you may think the world ten thousand years ago was fab, but I have a feeling if you - or any of us - was actually there, we'd be... well, we wouldn't like it, to say the least. It was pretty miserable. Just saying, I like civilization.

I maintain this, that more or less, it's exactly the same as it was then as it is now expecially within the context of this conversation;

Ramses, are you the ramses from lj?

Considering I have no idea what this LJ is, I think it's safe to say, no, lol.

[Witcher]

Re: Religious Practice and "Drugs"

Men can get angry over misogyny too. Many of us don't belong to the "bitches ain't shit" school of world philosophy.

"Feminism is for everybody." -Bell Hooks

[Ramses II]

Re: Religious Practice and "Drugs"

I hope you mean this in an 'I've been screwed over by women in the past and therefore don't trust them' way and not a sexist way. Either way is pretty bad but at least if you mean it the first way I might be able to not strongly dislike you...

If you dislike some random person on some discussion forum for some silly little quote they pulled from the movie Yellowbeard I don't know what to tell you, either way, I don't really care. Further, I am not sexist and mean't it more in a comical way and the former way as opposed to the latter that you described while also really placing focus on the government part, the woman part is just a joke. I distrust the sexes equally, if you really must know, there is no difference between the two. But I firmly stand by joke and movie quote and don't really give a damn how it's taken after this explanation. Oh noez, he told jokes about womernz, teh horror.

I also will say, I don't want this whole nonsense of "you're sexist," to pollute the thread. I'm married to a radical Feminist/Communist, all the shit you're about to say, I heard on a daily basis. I'm well versed, thank you, leave me to my own amusement.

[Medusa]

Re: Religious Practice and "Drugs"

That was quite a quad back pedal if I ever read one. You got the 'you don't really know me' in. The 'my friend is one too' in, even the 'it's from a movie'.


(slow clap)

[MaskedOne]

Re: Religious Practice and "Drugs"

Of course, you're free to your amusement (till the staff disagree anyway), I'm going to be highly entertained by the consequences. Still though, in a text based medium, wording matters. It prevents the mobs with pitchforks and torches. On that note, I need to secure good seating.

[Witcher]

Re: Religious Practice and "Drugs"

I also will say, I don't want this whole nonsense of "you're sexist," to pollute the thread. I'm married to a radical Feminist/Communist, all the shit you're about to say, I heard on a daily basis. I'm well versed, thank you, leave me to my own amusement.

http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/my-marxist-feminist-dialectic-brings-all-the-boys-to-the-yard/

[Ramses II]

Re: Religious Practice and "Drugs"

That was quite a quad back pedal if I ever read one. You got the 'you don't really know me' in. The 'my friend is one too' in, even the 'it's from a movie'.


(slow clap)

It's not a back pedal at all, I'm just stating my opinion, how I mean't it and what's going on. I don't really care about someone trying to pick up on one little phrase to try to take some moral pedestal position and say "omfg, that's sexism you prick." People can either take the joke or leave it, either or. But I do realize virtually anything I would say now would be construed as this "back pedal," so I'm not really seeing the point or benefit of elaborating any further if this is what it's going to inherently be reduced too.

Of course, you're free to your amusement (till the staff disagree anyway), I'm going to be highly entertained by the consequences. Still though, in a text based medium, wording matters. It prevents the mobs with pitchforks and torches. On that note, I need to secure good seating.

I am failing to understand the real issue or why this thread is being derailed for one small, inconsequential little silly joke from an 80's movie and now I'm being told there could be "consequences." Like, come on, this discussion forum is not that serious nor is life. I'm being perfectly civil and have explained myself thoroughly.

All this, "let's get seats and popcorn," business seems absurd to me, I'm half tempted to say close the whole bloody thread if this is how it's going to pan out. If I said something and then argued for it which was legitimately sexist and I was legitimately sexist, fine but I'm not, it was a joke, I've tried to make this clear in my posts so I see no reason why one should be butthurt over such a little of sentence.

[Medusa]

Re: Religious Practice and "Drugs"

It's not a back pedal at all, I'm just stating my opinion, how I mean't it and what's going on. I really care about someone trying to pick up on one little phrase to try to take some moral pedestal position and say "omfg, that's sexism you prick." People can either take the joke or leave it, either or. But I do realize virtually anything I would say now would be construed as this "back pedal," so I'm not really seeing the point or benefit of elaborating any further if this is what it's going to inherently be reduced too.

You know we are all being pretty chill about this to be honest. I don't think you meant to make it like it sounded. I think we are all simply taking the piss out of you. Don't worry. It will all be over soon.

Maybe we should just get back to the topic and let the slip..slide.


Drugs and religion. Continue....

[MaskedOne]

Re: Religious Practice and "Drugs"

Ramses II, for a guy claiming that people are overreacting to a joke. You are absolutely pitiful at ID'ing other people's humor. Of course my last two posts were absurd, nothing you've posted recently in this thread merits serious attention from me this late at night when I'm waking up at 5:30 in the morning tomorrow. The possibility that you've managed to unite six female posters against you with bad wording however provides me cheap entertainment (yes long-standing PF members are sadistic occasionally). Attaching some unnecessary dramatics to the issue is bringing a tradition from another board I frequent to PF for a little while.

[Ramses II]

Re: Religious Practice and "Drugs"

Ramses II, for a guy claiming that people are overreacting to a joke. You are absolutely pitiful at ID'ing other people's humor. Of course my last two posts were absurd, nothing you've posted recently in this thread merits serious attention from me this late at night when I'm waking up at 5:30 in the morning tomorrow. The possibility that you've managed to unite six female posters against you with bad wording however provides me cheap entertainment (yes long-standing PF members are sadistic occasionally). Attaching some unnecessary dramatics to the issue is bringing a tradition from another board I frequent to PF for a little while.

1) I recognize that some people are just joking around, I'm new and English isn't my native language; of course I'm not going to pick up on these nuances off the bat.
2) I don't take this thread seriously, this forum seriously, life seriously or anything really, save my religion and marriage.
3) I've tried to address numerous posts at once that aside from those whom I actually physically quoted got at best a cursory glance.

[Denarius]

Re: Religious Practice and "Drugs"

I really don't see the problem with marijuana in particular, most drugs that I DO have a problem with are ones that can cause harm to others. Like alcohol, meth, pcp, hallucinogens. Drugs that are actually dangerous to yourself and others.

Things like tobacco*, marijuana, opium, caffeine, whatever... They tend to only be self destructive, and who am I to make that choice for someone else?

As long as they understand the risks involved, and at least try to do so safely, then whatever I don't care.

That's their business.

*Second-hand smoke is a problem, but steps can be taken to minimize or eliminate that.