Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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".
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.
I will pose my questions one more time.
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 should really read that link I commented about "projection".
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
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
I have some empathy I remember posting on /r/drugs when I was 16 too...
I am not sure if you meant it as such, but that was a great burn. haha
I absolutely empathize with the "Bullheaded, everyone is wrong but me" teenage mentality as well. Especially that mentality mixed with unfettered access to the internet.
Age sure does wear it thin though. haha
See, but you are wrong, and now you're trying to pretend you're not, because you're a ~20 something male who can't accept when they make a mistake, and they always have to learn through being humiliated, than being ashamed for a few weeks, and then not doing that same mistake publicly again.
Remember the time you actually linked "that's a fallacy" , thinking naming a fallacy means you "win" a debate, when you presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong, when obviously, that's not the case.
But you're pretending we're not arguing over drug "liberalisation", so which is it? Am I arguing with you over that, or something else?
So you get to ignore all the stupid mistakes you made, and say what the conversation is about? Seems like you haven't had any conversations in real life...
Oh God, more of this. It's so clear what you value and what you pretend to be. Like when you thought that you'd win an argument by yelling out "fallacy", as if that meant that another person has to be wrong. Showing so clearly that you think that is an incredibly clear sign of how immature you are, philosophically.
You're pretending you don't know what an implication is (while still arguing based on what you think I implied), you're pretending like drug wars didn't start in the 20th century, and you're pretending you didn't say all the stupid shit you did. So, what do you think of the book? (Which you haven't read, like you've not read any others on the subject either.)
Quite frankly, I thank you for the entertainment.
A "war ON drugs" is a bit different from "a war FOR drugs". Perhaps you don't speak English?
The opioid wars weren't wars ON drugs.
Genuinely I wonder how people like you aren't ashamed to post. Genuinely baffles me.
You don't even read the comments you reply to. Vice laws have been tried several times in history.
You just don't know your fucking history, yet you're childish enough to argue me without even having a fucking point. It's pathetic.
It's generally accepted the war on drugs "really" began in the 70's, in the form it is today.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs
This is evident from a whole lot of historic facts — all of which you're unaware of, obviously.
Hey how about that time when you thought that saying "fallacy" wins you an argument?
Remember, you larping someone who understand how debating works? Remember that? Oh you don't, because it'd show just how much of a master debater you are?: )
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.
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?
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?
I do yes. You do not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen
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.
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.
Oh look! More projection! I do have to say your one trick pony show is beginning to get boring.
So you keep saying, and yet I have never made a claim otherwise.
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.
And what exactly does this prove? That you know what Google is? Are you pretending you weren't asking for 10 books I had read on the subject? But, you just admitted you asked for it because you wanted to know what I'd read, so you obviously didn't want a googled list of books, which you then provided yourself? Continuing with your asinine prescriptive bullshit, but not applying it to yourself? Seeing as how I never said "unrestricted access to any drug."
Oh look, a kid pretending he understands psychology!
Pretending like you don't understand what an implication is. Very mature, indeed.
Oh no, I made a typo! Nothing screams "chronically online edgelord" (that's how you spell "edgelord") just like thinking that editing a comment is somehow bad.
You try all the most edgelord things, like screaming "fallacy" to win a debate. Remember that? Remember when you tried winning an argument by calling it fallacious, like the edgelord you are, who has never picked up a book on philosophy, yet wants to pretend online he understands rhetoric.
I haven't laughed that hard in months
I really think you should lay down for that nap, or perhaps, get your bottle. Anything to help this tantrum you are throwing.
You know what's another really edgelord (not "edge lord") thing?
To not answer questions put to you after you pretend to be a master debater.
Perhaps it's because you literally can't answer any of those questions, because they show what a bad faith actor you are.
No answers about the books, after having asked for them. Have you read the list of books you linked? Ofc you haven't. You yourself admit you asked for books I had read, then somehow think a list of books from an Amazon search is related?
The wars for drugs weren't wars on drugs, but for them, silly.
All in all, you need to up your game. (Thinking you "win" a debate by loudly yelling "fallacy! Hahahah, so good)
It is funny that you think I am debating you, or that I owe you an answer to any of your questions when you refuse to answer mine.
You really have to get over the book thing. I get it, you don't read as much as you claim but that is no reason to behave this way.
Take a breather bud. This is no good for you.
Well, if you don't think you're "debating", why did you answer by quoting something I said and then just writing "fallacious"? I'll tell you. Because first off, you don't know philosophy and thought pointing out a fallacy means you "win" the conversation.
I haven't refused to answer any of your questions, buddy boy, you just keep shifting your goalposts. Maybe you've heard of that expression when larping a philosopher?
You asked for books. That was the first question you had, after I said I can provide literature. You then arbitrarily asked for ten books, supposing I haven't read ten books on the subject. (If narratives are included, I definitely have.) I then provided a lot of literature, emphasising the book "Good Cop, Bad War", which highlights how the drug war has worked and what is has done, and why it is that it exists in the first place. You can read a lot of that from Noam Chomsky as well, as the "War ON drugs" (not war for drugs, like the opium wars you referred to) began in the States, and Chomsky is really good at breaking down internal US politics of the time.
But you're not looking to discuss the subject, because you know you're wrong, so you can't address it, because you're not a big enough person to actually admit when someone else makes a good point or proves you wrong. Perhaps you got too much of that in real life and now thought that you wouldn't have to take any online. Well, you know, if you keep being wrong so stubbornly, and using "fallacies" to "debate" then, you're gonna have to learn to accept people calling you out on it.
You say all of this like it is impossible to scroll back up the thread and see exactly what happened.
Fucking again. Why do you keep doing this?
When people read this thread, who do you think they will think is serious about having a conversation; the guy actually recapping the essence of the conversation, and trying to continue it, or the asshat who keeps trying extremely juvenile "tactics" like yelling "fallacy", saying "you haven't answered my (bad faith) questions" (which I have) and absolutely refusing to address the subject.
You asked for books. That was the first question you had, after I said I can provide literature. You then arbitrarily asked for ten books, supposing I haven’t read ten books on the subject. (If narratives are included, I definitely have.) I then provided a lot of literature, emphasising the book “Good Cop, Bad War”, which highlights how the drug war has worked and what is has done, and why it is that it exists in the first place. You can read a lot of that from Noam Chomsky as well, as the “War ON drugs” (not war for drugs, like the opium wars you referred to) began in the States, and Chomsky is really good at breaking down internal US politics of the time.
You said stupid shit and now you're too ashamed to back it up because you know you can't, but you're also afraid of "not getting the last word."
You can't address the book and literature I mentioned, despite asking for them.
You conflated wars FOR opium to The War ON Drugs. All these silly things you ignore, because you're not a big enough person to admit to mistakes, even on a pseudonymous forum. I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm really not. Kids like you are a dime a dozen.
From the top:
First question asked.
Second.
Third.
Fourth.
Then you said this:
and I said, without posing a question:
A strong reader would notice the lack of "?" at the end of that sentence, meaning it wasn't a "question".
Do you understand how punctuation works?
Did you forget that I said I would be ignoring you moving forward? Which to clarify doesn't mean I won't respond. It means I will ignore what you are saying and respond to whatever catches my fancy. Which is obviously making you big mad.
I find it quite funny, which is the only reason I am choosing to continue. You are a joke to me and as long as you keep delivering the punchlines, I will keep coming back with responses that fire you up.
Isn't it just?
Because someone listing things like that, answering with oneliners, while yelling out "fallacy" to "win" a debate, isn't "debating"? Sure, buddy, sure.
Do you know what a rhetorical question is? Are you pretending you're really looking for a yes or no answer to your rhetorical question? The answer to your RHETORICAL question is "yes." Happy? ("Rhetorical" doesn't mean "not waiting for an answer" btw, which I'm sure you think it does.)
Perhaps read my comments again to know why I haven't answered a question asking me about a thing I didn't say? If you want to be petty and childish about taking things literally and not having a reasonable discussion, then really, why would you ask something this stupid?
I've answered that several times. Even in a comment of it's own that had nothing else in it. Why do you keep ignoring my reply?
And I stand by that and provided you that literature, which you've ignored now for several days, because you weren't asking in good faith. You didn't actually want to know any, you're just being a childish c**t who thought asking for "ten books" would be some sort of impossible intellectual criteria you thought I couldn't manage. Which definitely tells a lot about what you consider to be "a lot of books." How many books you read in a year? I'm thinking you're of the generation who doesn't read books at all, which is why you asked, but now can't actually discuss the literature which you asked for.
It's honestly getting to be a bit annoying how childish you're being.
No, but I've had this same exact conversation a billion times (yes, that is metaphorical, not literal), and kids like you always get pissy, start trying to "win" by yelling out "fallacy" (not realising that even if logic was fallacious doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong), ignoring every single idiotic mistake you make, and then going "I'm done, you're not worth it" while constantly returning to answer and so desperately trying to "get the last word." That's exactly who you are. Like I said, kids like you are a dime in a dozen. You need to up your game.
You literally referenced Opium Wars, thinking they're the same thing as the war ON drugs. They were wars FOR drugs. Not understanding the difference between "for" and "on" doesn't suggest strong reading abilities, does it?
I think you are missing the real question here. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
See before; "you can't address anything you've even said yourself when I actually answer you, but you still have this obsession over 'getting the last word'."
You just have to reply, but you can't address anything, despite last time anally listing "questions I haven't answered." Like I've said, I've answered you several times. And like you said, people can just scroll to the start of the thread and read it. So I don't know what the fuck you're doing by being this childish.
Pot calling the kettle black much?
Nothing is stopping you from not replying.
I like using forums and discussing even with people who are obnoxious and wrong. I don't feel a need to stop replying. I don't have a childish need of "winning" a "not-debate" I'm in.
I'm not the one who loudly proclaimed they're "done" with this debate. Or was it conversation? Your use of "fallacy!" while trying to "win" a debate seemed to imply you're trying to debate, as did the list form of replying you did in your last comment.
I answered all your questions, but I know you won't address my answers or answer my questions.
not answering questions, especially loaded or irrelevant ones, is a great debate strategy.
edit:
while i think they are picking a semantic fight about a topic on which they are not prepare to engage, your engagement has been kind of shitty toward them, too. i think you could be better and still show that they are silly and ignorant of the topic.
Oh I don't deny that for a second. I'm very fed up with people who get snarky like that over the drug war. It's because of the drug propaganda. Even people who use them themselves, have this inbuilt aversion to even thinking about drug legalisation. Genuinely, I've had the conversation with hundreds of people in real life, and it's just something... insidious. So I fight it whenever I can, and there's no irl social repercussions for being a dick on Lemmy, so if he's being a dick and defending the prohibition of drugs — even if they actually oppose it, as they admit — I am going to respond with the same measure.
This is an exaggeration, but I genuinely believe that a complete reform of drug laws is essential to the entire planet. Basically all crime funds itself through illegal drugs, so we'd basically take out drug cartels by legalising drugs, and through that, all the other shit that's adjacent. A metric fuckton of crime would just up and vanish, basically. As the drug trade will exist, legal or not, but if it's legal, there's legal ways to go about it, so deals can be made, contracts drawn up, and if people break them or don't pay, one can use the legal system to get one's dues. When it's illegal, you just have to hammer a guy's knees, because you can't put the drug debt into an official system, but you can't let a guy go either, nor can you go to the police and say he's stolen from you.
And that's just the first part.
Because have you ever been in any event that people mainly used ecstasy in? Just... no-one is angry. No violence. Complete opposite of a regular Saturday night in a Finnish bar which is full of implied threats and menacing looks.
I'm not saying everyone should do ecstasy, but I am saying that when given a choice, a lot of people I know would prefer ecstasy if it was socially acceptable (they use maybe 1-2 times a year, go to an event of some sort, so as to not be in the local clubs). And going by the literature in psychiatric and psychological treatments which use psychedelics/mdma, they could be amazingly helpful to the global community. I once actually made a video called "make Trump do LSD". I stand by the sentiment, but the video was shit.
Anyway, even those mates who go to some ecstasy gigs a few times a year, they got really upset one time when we started talking about it. Which to me is just crazy. They know. They use the drugs. But when I asked why, it was a plethora of the same indirect, vague prohibition supporting bullshit, which comes through the shitty drug war propaganda.