And back to the childish “no I didn’t” it is. Okay, let’s do this for a few comments until you get provoked into trying something desperate again.

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

Why would we need for you to say it’s harmful? You explicitly say that you don’t think it needs to be lifted for the good of society. It does. Just like the book “Good Cop, Bad War” explains in detail. But like I’ve said, you can’t even mention the book, because it would mean that you’d have to address something you know you’re wrong in. You asked for books, yet you can’t discuss them, because you weren’t asking for books in good faith.

Like I’ve said, kids like you are a dime in a dozen. You genuinely think you have some gotcha, when you’re repeating the very same things that a million others like you have. This is basically just practice for me, you see. I like rhetoric. I’m also intrigued by willful ignorance. Willful ignorance like you display when you ignore all the things you’ve said yourself. Like screaming “logical fallacy”, implying that because something has a logical fallacy in it (which it didn’t, btw, you really don’t understand those as well as you think :D), it has to be wrong and thus you’ve “won” the debate. Not understanding what an argument from fallacy is. This is like the dozenth time I’m writing this in a comment. You keep ignoring it, because you’re simply so ashamed of having said that.

Stay mad homie.

To quote a comment of yours:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/projection

You don’t stand by everything you’ve said. Actually, you don’t stand by anything you’ve said. That’s my point. You keep saying things that are very clearly not true, verifiable by this thread. Like you said, “anyone can read it.”

The prohibition of drugs is harmful. This is a fact. All the science we have on it shows it is. I said I can offer up any number of literature on this, after which you asked for an arbitrary ten books. I named a book called “Good Cop, Bad War.” You can’t address me having named that book, except to whinge about me not having filled your arbitrary quotas. Why would you be a definite authority and ten books be the certain criteria for proving something is true? It isn’t. If you read that book, you’d know what it’s about, but obviously, as established, you don’t read. You don’t even bother reading the comments you reply to, by your own admission.

Which is why I linked this: https://youtu.be/y_TV4GuXFoA?si=hFGZyNJqHnPpmuLl&t=718 You don’t even need to watch that insanely long 12,5 minute video. That’s just the last 30 seconds of it, where he speaks about the book I mentioned. I quote: “My position is the position of my organisation which is the law enforcement action partnership; we advocate for the full regulation of all the drug markets, to take control away from organised crime and increasingly we’ve becoming the most important voices for reform.”

Your position is asinine and wrong, which is the point of this entire thread. But you won’t be able to talk about it, you’ll continue with more childish personal attacks.

edit oh like I said, you ignored the parts of the last comment which would humiliate you. you can try to ignore them to keep that thought away, but even when you delete the comments, the idiocy will remain. your need to up your rhetorical game.

You still can’t address anything you’ve said in the thread.

To quote you;

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.

And

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

You’re wrong. You’re plain wrong. The science shows this. You can’t address this. You’ll chew of your own leg before trying to debate me on this, because you realise you got into a debate with someone who knows his shit, while you’re full of shit, and you’re absolutely terrified of being ashamed “publicly.” Too late buddy. Sorry. :(

All you can do is repeat your childish ad hom. Nothing else. I’ll quote you a bit more, but you won’t be able to address that either.

Oh look more logical fallacy with a heavy sprinkle of personal attack

And the earlier “you think I am debating you” combined with this gives a really nice taste of irony, doesn’t it? ;)

You can’t stand behind those words either, because you’re now extremely ashamed when I pointed out how childish it is to pretend to know how rhetoric works by thinking that yelling out “logical fallacy” means the other person’s rhetoric can be dismissed. If you had ever read a book about rhetoric, you’d know that. But, of course you haven’t. You don’t read books. You just google the names of books. :D

ONE MORE QUOTE (which you won’t be able to address):

Honestly the logical fallacy and personal attacks have become quite tiresome. You are not worth any further time

Curious how you’re still here, so upset, while loudly proclaiming I’m not “worth any further time”. Almost as if I’ve provoked you, isn’t it? ;)

Well, it really makes sense for these every specifically tuned biological machines to all function more or less the same way.

Everything we can glean from neurology pretty much says our perceptions are similar, we just process them differently.

Red is a shorter wavelength than blue. It would make no sense for the brain to interpret long wavelengths as short or short as long, which is probably why our colour perceptions are more or less the same.

Language affects our perception more than the biological hardware we have. The physical sensations are similar to everyone, but processing them is different. Which is why it could still be that your red isn’t my red. But my point is I don’t think it’d ever be blue or green in any context. It’d je different, perhaps, but not fundamentally so.

The ancient Greeks used to call the sky bronze. Related, there was this cool short the other day. Talked about how someone raised their kid normally other than carefully making sure never to say what colour the sky is, and then later inquiring about it. The girl had trouble at first, but calling it some mix of white and blue. The point in that was that kids learn colours somehow related to other objects. And the sky, as “an object”, is a very different category and was thus weird for her to assign a colour to.

Unrelated rant over

It’s so easy to provoke you. All I need to do is to quote you back to yourself and you’ll get red in the face.

Again, you can’t address anything you’ve said, or that I’ve said.

“Feel free to copy paste” You mean “copypaste”, btw. This is the extremes you’ll go to. You just have to reply, but you can’t address anything we’ve talked about, and now literally pretend like it’s impossible for you to look at my answers, when you just wrote that “anyone can read the thread.” Why don’t you start by actually reading it yourself, hmm? It’s funny that a person who can’t even write words correctly asked me about punctuation. Hue hue hue. Like I’ve said before, you’re so pretentious it literally twists my stomach to an extent.

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.

I began this thread. I made a comment. You took it as some official claim, but even got it wrong on what the claim was. You then asked for the literature I had offered to show. Which I did. Then you refused to address it, then you started yelling something about “fallacy”, (which once again is kinda funny, because it shows how you larp a philosopher/debater while not knowing what the ‘argument from fallacy’ is), then you started going totally off the rails with these childish comments. Even then, I kept replying to you. I answered your childish strawmen several times. I’ve responded with literature, but you literally can not even name the book I’ve given you, let alone actually discuss what’s in it (because it would require actually reading the book), nor even discuss the subject of the book. Because you’ve realised you’re wrong, and you’re just such a small person that even on a pseudonymous board, you get a panic attack when you think about publicly admitting to having said something stupid. I’ve addressed all your childish garbage, and you can’t address anything you’ve said or what I’ve said. It’s downright pitiful, honestly. I wish better for you.

You keep moving your goalposts.

I haven’t changed what I’m saying, at any point. I’ve answered you several times. If you can’t read the thread, that’s really not my issue, is it? Perhaps you need to… up your game? ;)

None of this crazy shit is going to come to pass. It’s just going to be more of the same.

Said literally everyone in history, and… we’re proven wrong eventually.

Unless you have proof of malice.

I would suggest you also try to find different perspectives on how people got different opinions on the subject

No offense, but; oh, please.

I find it extremely annoying that people pretend as if I’ve not listened to or considered the “different opinions”. If it even was different opinions. It never really is. That’s my point. People don’t really form an opinion of the subject as an aversion to it. If I could just relay my personal experiences to you. The frustration of politely bringing the topic up pretty much always ends in people getting extremely upset. And I’ve worked customer service for decades. I know how to be polite.

I don’t need to accept the asinine propaganda being touted as someone’s opinion. Like the “I don’t want my doctor being high” shit. It’s almost as disrespectfully asinine as “if people do LSD, they’ll peel themselves as oranges or try to fly by jumping of high rise buildings”. No respectable doctor is someone who goes to work high. And if they’re a doctor who’s not respectable and have a drug issue, they shouldn’t be a doctor, but those doctors exist currently. And according to actual science we have on the issue, reforming drug laws to be more liberal really works on addicts, so legalising drugs will actually make it less likely your doctor would be high. Doctors have access to pharmaceuticals all the time, so why on Earth would they need to wait for them to be legal? Them being legal wouldn’t make it okay for them to be under the influence at work, just like it’s not okay for them to be under the influence now.

See. I have considered their “opinions”. More than they have. And that’s my issue with it. People get somewhat upset, and then say “have you considered”, when it’s literally them who are refusing to even consider my side.

If anything, your opinion/facts are discarded quicker

That is a myth as well, btw. Well, according to the flimsy research we have.

What is true however, is that some people will sometimes (or most of the time) perceive neutral attitudes as hostile ones. Unfortunately, not my issue. Where I live, we speak directly. It’s in our culture.

However, for that one guy, I’m not really being neutral towards. But this comment, for instance, is completely neutral.

You know who appears too emotionally connected to a subject? People who can’t even consider something else than what someone programmed into their brain through shitty propaganda, because they get extremely emotionally upset if they even try.

It’s a cold hard fact that prohibition of drugs is extremely harmful towards the planet, and any sort of even indirect defense of it or defense of aversion towards discussing it is bad for the world in the long run.

Imagine if you were suddenly transported to say to the 1800’s or something. Imagine how annoyed and disgusted you would be with people who’d get annoyed (or even downright violent) at you for you trying to talk about how chattel slavery is bad.

edit oh I forgot to mention, there’s one person that I actually managed to completely convert during a single night. He began touting 60’s propaganda. (Literally, he was like 70 or something at the time and this was in 2011 or something.) He was the president of the local Mensa. (Any my coworker, he worked part time essentially.) He actually considered my points. It took a while to get through the propaganda, but once I just posed the same simple questions enough times (and after a bottle of Jägermeister) he suddenly stopped at one point when he was raising his finger in protest, then froze, looked somewhere far and was like. “Huh. I think you got me with that one.” And that’s how you recognise intelligence. He actually listened, unlike 99% of the population with that extreme aversion to the whole topic.

So you’re admitting that you don’t “listen” to the people you have conversations with online?

This is looking better and better for you, isn’t it? You ask for books, then can’t talk about them, you yell “fallacy” then say you’re not debating, you say you won’t even reply anymore, but then keep coming back, despite not having anything to say except these childish attempts at being a smart-arse.

Why do you do it?

I can address everything we’ve talked about. I can stand behind my words. You can’t.

You need to “up your game”.

Well, I keep bringing up the thing I originally commented, while you keep pretending to be very serious and all, then leaving these utterly childish replies, where like I’ve said a dozen times, you can’t even address the things you yourself say.

So who exactly isn’t answering questions?

A bit ashamed you were wrong? It’s okay. It’s the internet. It’s full of people like you saying dumb shit they can’t back up and get flustered about. There’s nothing to be ashamed of.

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.

https://youtu.be/e5oERYFhS3M

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.

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.

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.

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

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.)

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

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?

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

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?

If you’re honestly interested, you can find tons of literature.

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.

A strong reader would notice the lack of “?” at the end of that sentence, meaning it wasn’t a “question”.

It’s honestly getting to be a bit annoying how childish you’re being.

Did you forget that I said I would be ignoring you moving forward?

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?

This might be silly to ask, but have you tried high CBD strains instead of “purely recreational” ones (which often have high THC and abysmally low CBD)?

CBD attenuates some effecs of THC. I very much doubt it would change the behaviour of THC completely for you, but there’s still a lot we need to learn about cannabis so, I wouldn’t say anything for certain.

I think it’s also likely that it’s very hard to amass billions unless you already have some sort of brain rot.

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.

I probably honestly might have killed myself a few years back if it weren’t for him.

Say what you will about the author of Harry Potter, but the audiobooks narrated by Stephen helped a metric fuckton.

Fry’s own books are super worth as well, but Mythos and Heroes are less personal narratives than HP and I had fond memories.

“This too, shall pass.”

The Fry Chronicles audiobook is also fantastic.

The last 8 years have gone by in what feels like months.

your engagement has been kind of shitty toward them, too

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.