Grad 2003!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: Grad 2003!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sir David Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire! Member # 919	written Sunday, June 22 2003 14:52 Profile #50 Uhh, which part is that? And what kind of mind would make sense of that??? :eek: -------------------- And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it. -The Last Pendragon TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL Les forum de la chance. In case of emergency, break glass. Posts: 3351 \| Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
Lord Bob Shock Trooper Member # 55	written Sunday, June 22 2003 14:57 Profile Homepage #51 The part of my brain is located just ventral of the hypothalamus, just a couple of cells there responsible for taking everything I read from a message board and converting into strange, psychedlic existence. But it was still funny. :P Posts: 236 \| Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
The Immortal BANNED Member # 4	written Sunday, June 22 2003 16:25 Profile Homepage #52 Rentboy- It's much more of an honor to see David being beaten intellectually like a dog with its tail between its legs. Keep it up. -------------------- We're all amazed but not amused By all the things that you said you'd do. You're much concerned but not involved by Decisions that are made by you But we are sick and tired of hearing your song, Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong, 'Cause if you really want to hear our views, You haven't done nothin'. Posts: 6936 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Crap Blood Swirl Dance the Banned Dance Member # 3052	written Sunday, June 22 2003 17:36 Profile #53 quote: Lord Bob: Oh. And if Alorael is a hitman...then life has suddenly begun to make sense. Yeah, now you know why he smuggles sniper rifles and skribbane, then kills pedestrians. The mass murdering has begun. Posts: 543 \| Registered: Sunday, June 1 2003 07:00
Sir David Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire! Member # 919	written Monday, June 23 2003 05:03 Profile #54 Yeah, but don't hitmen generally have specific targets? Alorael just snipes random pedestrians. And as for being "beaten intellectually", you will notice that I didn't even respond to that post. That does not mean I couldn't argue. Maybe for most people it does, but not for me. Anyway, I said "bad", not "addictive". LSD is bad for you, just because it's not addictive doesn't mean it's ok. Also, even though you are not addicted physically, you could be addicted to it in the way that some people are addicted to candy. And yeah, caffeine's bad too, which is why we have decaf, and which is why I said there should be research to discover ways to make caffeinated coffee less addicting. And again, you're using the theory that people should be able to do as much harm as they want, as long as it doesn't harm others. You are being an ignorant idealist. Treatment, outreach, education? Sounds good. Let them harm themselves? Sounds bad, and even if it were right to let people do whatever they want to themselves, death affects more than one person. Have you forgotten the little "family" thing? Or those stupid little "friends"? Oh well, as long as the person feels good for a minute or two, the years of anguish and suffering mean nothing. As for the former cokehead partyboy, "former" is the key word, and anyway, I can assure you that more than one person shares this belief. If you think hermful drugs are OK, then apparently they/we do know better than you. And again, if you persist in this belief that it's ok to harm only yourself, fine, but just please remember the family and friends. -------------------- And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it. -The Last Pendragon TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL Les forum de la chance. In case of emergency, break glass. Posts: 3351 \| Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
The Immortal BANNED Member # 4	written Monday, June 23 2003 08:18 Profile Homepage #55 quote: Originally posted by iDavid: And as for being "beaten intellectually", you will notice that I didn't even respond to that post. That does not mean I couldn't argue. Maybe for most people it does, but not for me. Usually when something goes unanswered and the person whos arguments it's aimed at replies and not to the arguments, I take it as admitting defeat. You should have at least posted something along the lines of "I'll respond to this soon", or somesuch. quote: Originally posted by iDavid: Anyway, I said "bad", not "addictive". LSD is bad for you, just because it's not addictive doesn't mean it's ok. Also, even though you are not addicted physically, you could be addicted to it in the way that some people are addicted to candy. And yeah, caffeine's bad too, which is why we have decaf, and which is why I said there should be research to discover ways to make caffeinated coffee less addicting. So wait, you're for illegalizing anything that people might like that could possibly do them harm? Chocolate makes people fat and gives them more carbs than they could possibly need, and under your definition, can be addictive. Yeah, you're right; we aught to start hurling those choco-snorting hippie bastards into Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Arse Prison, for doing something to themselves that can be uner some warped definition be considered addictive and bad for them. Ignoring the fact that there will be a dangerous chocolate black market, which would follow the trend of there being a violent, muderous underground market every single time a substance has been legalized (Alfonz Capone, anyone?). quote: Originally posted by iDavid: And again, you're using the theory that people should be able to do as much harm as they want, as long as it doesn't harm others. You are being an ignorant idealist. Treatment, outreach, education? Sounds good. Let them harm themselves? Sounds bad, and even if it were right to let people do whatever they want to themselves, death affects more than one person. Have you forgotten the little "family" thing? Or those stupid little "friends"? Oh well, as long as the person feels good for a minute or two, the years of anguish and suffering mean nothing. I apologize for advocating the freedom to live one's life as one sees fit. Obviously, the state is a much better determining factor for how we live. It's ignorant to believe that I can live my own lifestyle, when obviously, doing what is best for everyone is a decision that I must make, and this doctrine must for the sake of all of us be enforced by law. ---- My god, how brutally totalitarian are you? If you're going to outlaw things that harm you, you might as well outaw everything under the sun other than cold showers and bible studies. Almost every single activity that mankind does has the chance of killing them, is done for their own pleasure, and can (under your warped definition) be considered addictive. By your definition, this makes it illegal. Why not just make an army of clones to work six days a week, and go to Church on Sunday? When I say this, you have no reason to be flattered: You utterly horrify me. quote: Originally posted by iDavid: As for the former cokehead partyboy, "former" is the key word, and anyway, I can assure you that more than one person shares this belief. (I'm stopping here, 'cause I really have no idea what the hell you're trying to say with this. Restate this at your own leisure.) quote: Originally posted by iDavid: If you think harmful drugs are OK, then apparently they/we do know better than you. And again, if you persist in this belief that it's ok to harm only yourself, fine, but just please remember the family and friends. So wait, you're saying that if a person wants to live their own life in a way you don't agree with and can possibly be harmful to themselves, then you know what's best for them, and should throw their sorry ass in prison and try to prevent them from ever doing something that might just possibly harm them ever again? You're saying that you know how to live somebody else's life? I'd sooner slit my own throat then let you (or anyone else, for that matter) tell me how to live. On friends, etc- If it's the state's duty to prevent emotional damage, then you're inherently treading on every right imaginable (not that I think you'd actually care about civil rights, but just a thought). Why not make teasing illegal, because it might just give other children scary complexes? Your almighty God knows that the State cannot allow children to be emotionally damaged, and thus teasing must be punishable by criminal law! Children with complexes are unhappy, and one day, they might even grow up to smoke DRUGS! -------------------- We're all amazed but not amused By all the things that you said you'd do. You're much concerned but not involved by Decisions that are made by you But we are sick and tired of hearing your song, Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong, 'Cause if you really want to hear our views, You haven't done nothin'. Posts: 6936 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Jigga Infiltrator Member # 1823	written Monday, June 23 2003 08:39 Profile Homepage #56 I'm surprised that nobody has commented on Dave's strange ideas about researching into making coffee less addictive. How exactly do you plan to do this? And then, even if this can be done, which it can't, then the same could be done with cannabis, cocaine and even heroine. But it can't, so that's moot. And please, TM, don't think that David's religion is so much to do with his opinions on this - it isn't, and I found it slightly offensive. On another note - don't you all think that jokes about sniping and scribbane are getting just even a little bit old? -------------------- Riot Shields Voodoo Economics It's just business Cattle prods And the IMF I trust I can rely on your vote Posts: 530 \| Registered: Sunday, September 1 2002 07:00
Drakefyre Triad Mage Member # 7	written Monday, June 23 2003 09:14 Profile Homepage #57 I must commend TM for showing remarkable restraint in that post and not attacking David like he normally does. I think David appreciates it too. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Vahnatai Did Do It desperance.net - We're Everywhere The Arena - God Will Sort The Dead ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 \| Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00
ef Guardian Member # 2476	written Monday, June 23 2003 09:51 Profile #58 I feel torn. As a private person I would like to legalize at least some of the drugs that are illegal now. As a therapist who has had to treat long term damage due to drug abuse (for instance epilepsy as a result of crack abuse) I want an age limit. If a twentyfive-year-old insists on overdosaging cocaine, so be it. If a fifteen-year-old does the same, I want to be permitted to say no. The passionate longing of addiction is far more a psychic craving than a physical one. I don't think that we would get rid of it by banning addictive substances. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 \| Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00
qwd BANNED Member # 3121	written Monday, June 23 2003 09:58 Profile Homepage #59 Uh, I have nothing against coffee, chokolate, or other "drugs", just the more harmful ones, like heroine, LSD, marihuana, crack, all that sort. Legalizing them would only result into more deaths, due to overdosing, or other similar stuff. Whilst coffee is addictive, it has no chance of killing you. At least if you use it normally, not, say, 45 cups in a day. Uhh why did I do this? Try to debate in english for God's sake. [ Monday, June 23, 2003 10:13: Message edited by: Rollerblade Warrior ] -------------------- - WITH LOVE, THE OL' RELIABLE BOYLOVE, TO BE EXACT Posts: 761 \| Registered: Thursday, June 19 2003 07:00
Imban Shake Before Using Member # 75	written Monday, June 23 2003 10:08 Profile #60 Actually, legalising it would likely reduce deaths due to overdosing, as you would know exactly how much you're taking at any given time. (While you might still be a moron and overdose, store-bought LSD, for example, would always be of the same quality, while the trenchcoat-wearing guy on the corner might have super-weak stuff one day and super-strong stuff the next.) Posts: 3234 \| Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Terl Warrior Member # 3124	written Monday, June 23 2003 10:39 Profile #61 Its a hard call. Legalising some of the drugs would also cut back on some crime and, if controlled, would stabilize the pricing. Think of the boon to taxes if the feds legalised pot! Though I do not use, nor advocate its use, there are some benefits in the mix. -------------------- The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'. Larry Hardiman Posts: 110 \| Registered: Thursday, June 19 2003 07:00
RentPeople Infiltrator Member # 2669	written Monday, June 23 2003 13:26 Profile Homepage #62 I'd agree with the age limits. Lower the drinking age to 16, raise the driving age to 18, and make the hard drugs age at least 21. Sure, legalization will bring a host of new problems with it, but I think it's time to face up that challenge. People should be allowed to have all the choices available for them. As long as they're educated choices. I would even advocate some sort of drug workshop where you can deal with some of the harder drugs under supervision. I have no illusions, however. This will not happen in my lifetime, not in this country. And, David, don't feed me this friends and family garbage. Some people precisely want to shuffle off this mortal coil because of the friends and family they've been dealt. I believe it a much better solution to let friends and family try to persuade someone to want to live rather than have a government mandate to stay alive. But how much motivation can the father that raped you provide, or your alcoholic mother that beat you relentlessly? -------------------- ... Posts: 647 \| Registered: Wednesday, February 19 2003 08:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Monday, June 23 2003 14:24 Profile Homepage #63 I would like to clarify that I do not, in fact, support the illegalization of alcohol. The Prohibition showed the problems of that nicely, as I alluded in my post. Legalization for everything would work well, although I still think many drugs should be regulated so heavily they might as well be illegal. —Alorael, who would once again like to point out the sheer amount of money that goes to illegal drug trade. If all that were to go to tax-paying companies and sales tax, there would be money that the government would use to support education and healthcare! That's about as likely as legalization in the first place! Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
X Shaper Member # 496	written Tuesday, June 24 2003 06:04 Profile #64 As noted on a previous thread like this, the most potent and harmful drugs--opiates especially--are legal already. You just have to register as an addict and take them under controlled circumstances. They do this both in the interests of harm reduction, of reducing drug-related secondary crime, and of denying customers to the black market. Absurdly, it is the harmless drugs like cannabis (and I'd add E here, given the few deaths caused by it are down to impurities and dehydration, problems legalisation would counter) that don't have a big social impact that will remain outlawed longest. Posts: 2333 \| Registered: Monday, January 7 2002 08:00
Sir David Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire! Member # 919	written Tuesday, June 24 2003 12:12 Profile #65 As Drakey said, thanks TM. Of course I still don't agree with you, in fact I literally had to go to the top of that post 3 times to make sure it wasn't Alec's number sitting there under your name, but whatever. I'm sure this doesn't address all of what you said, but I'm talking about the more harmful things. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that smoking a cigarettes is a bit more dangerous than eating a piece of chocolate (which reminds me, is chokolate a British spelling, or just a typo?). If you're going to use that kind of logic (yes I know it was sarcasm), then those who exhale should receive as much punishment as serial killers. -------------------- And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it. -The Last Pendragon TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL Les forum de la chance. In case of emergency, break glass. Posts: 3351 \| Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
The Immortal BANNED Member # 4	written Tuesday, June 24 2003 12:25 Profile Homepage #66 quote: Originally written by iDavid: As Drakey said, thanks TM. Of course I still don't agree with you, in fact I literally had to go to the top of that post 3 times to make sure it wasn't Alec's number sitting there under your name, but whatever. Alec is not the most liberal person on these boards. quote: Originally written by iDavid: I'm sure this doesn't address all of what you said, but I'm talking about the more harmful things. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that smoking a cigarettes is a bit more dangerous than eating a piece of chocolate (which reminds me, is chokolate a British spelling, or just a typo?)* . If you're going to use that kind of logic (yes I know it was sarcasm), then those who exhale should receive as much punishment as serial killers. ...exactly my point. I'm not advocating what I posted; what I posted was a mere extrapolation of the definition you gave of legally punishable acts or substances. * Chokolate is probably a typo. -------------------- We're all amazed but not amused By all the things that you said you'd do. You're much concerned but not involved by Decisions that are made by you But we are sick and tired of hearing your song, Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong, 'Cause if you really want to hear our views, You haven't done nothin'. Posts: 6936 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Sir David Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire! Member # 919	written Tuesday, June 24 2003 15:19 Profile #67 I'm aware of that, about Alec, TM. Umm as for the definition, I guess it needs a cut-off point, but anyway you should be able to get the general idea. Of course there should be a bottom line for what is legally punishable, but the bottom line I would set is lower than pot and tobacco... maybe alcohol, although as Alorael said it would be much harder to forbid. Plus it's not all harmless, it can even help your health if you drink only one glass a day of red wine. -------------------- And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it. -The Last Pendragon TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL Les forum de la chance. In case of emergency, break glass. Posts: 3351 \| Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
The Immortal BANNED Member # 4	written Tuesday, June 24 2003 18:09 Profile Homepage #68 About red wine- Alcohol is far from beneficial in those circumstances. From what I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong), it's the anti-oxidants in red wine that help you live longer. Alcohol (as in the substance) is a poison, and in and of itself has no nutritional value. Now onto your other points (however I probably will be repeating myself): 1) You mean to tell me that you (or anyone else, for that matter) think you have the mandate of heaven to tell me what I can and cannot put in my system? I don't see any laws on the books that forbid me from drinking 1,000 needles, but that's plenty more dangerous than snorting a teaspoon of powdered hallucinogens or smoking a fat blunt. 2) Who decides where this "mystical, magical cut-off" line is? Can you possibly comprehend how your definition can be construed to make every activity except for reading scripture illegal? How could you gague the "danger level" of certain activities? (Again, I apologize for wasting more bandwidth, but it appears as if Sir David has refused to respond to my last post sufficiently, and unless he wants a case full of holes, he's going to have to answer my previous post somehow.) -------------------- We're all amazed but not amused By all the things that you said you'd do. You're much concerned but not involved by Decisions that are made by you But we are sick and tired of hearing your song, Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong, 'Cause if you really want to hear our views, You haven't done nothin'. Posts: 6936 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Sir David Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire! Member # 919	written Wednesday, June 25 2003 07:36 Profile #69 I knew that about red wine, OK but anyway, the anti-oxidants are what make it good. Sure you could just have suppliments, but all I'm saying is red wine is OK in moderation. And it is alcohol (as in the beverage). 1)I believe that drinking a thousand needles would kill you, and suicide is illegal, so actually, that law is on the books. 2) The government, yes but quite obviously it would not be construed to do that, and research and common sense. (Please quote what, specifically, you would like me to respond to. And tell me from which previous post, I did respond to the one right before so I'm asuming you mean one before that.) -------------------- And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it. -The Last Pendragon TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL Les forum de la chance. In case of emergency, break glass. Posts: 3351 \| Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Wednesday, June 25 2003 12:59 Profile Homepage #70 Red wine is alcoholic, but it is not itself alcohol. If there were a way to move all the alcohol and preserve the taste, many people would be happy to have that pseudo-wine. Most people don't drink wine to get drunk, they drink it because it tastes good and happens to be a fancy drink. Liver damage isn't what they want out of it. —Alorael, who also doesn't see why suicide, or more specifically requested euthanasia, is illegal. If someone really thinks it's better to die by drinking a thousand needles than to live, they should be able to act upon that belief. Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Omlette Shaper Member # 517	written Thursday, June 26 2003 01:34 Profile #71 TM, would you kindly stop linking David's bizzare opinions and his religious beliefs. I don't think even he thinks being Christian and agreeing with him are one and the same thing, and I certainly don't. Especially when he doesn't mention them, you have no reason to assume that all his beliefs are a product of his religon, and I would appreciate it if you didn't. -E- -------------------- Let them eat cake! Polaris Boards: The System is Up. Perennially. Posts: 2314 \| Registered: Tuesday, January 15 2002 08:00
The Immortal BANNED Member # 4	written Thursday, June 26 2003 09:55 Profile Homepage #72 Mandate of Heaven was more a reference to the ancient Chinese emperors who were allowed absolute rule in times of prosperity, only to be kicked out (and possibly slain) in bad times, under the belief that the gods were no longer smiling on him. It had nothing to do with Christianity. I'd go after David's points, but Alorael got to them first. -------------------- We're all amazed but not amused By all the things that you said you'd do. You're much concerned but not involved by Decisions that are made by you But we are sick and tired of hearing your song, Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong, 'Cause if you really want to hear our views, You haven't done nothin'. Posts: 6936 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Jigga Infiltrator Member # 1823	written Thursday, June 26 2003 10:15 Profile Homepage #73 quote: Originally written by Alorael: Red wine is alcoholic, but it is not itself alcohol. If there were a way to move all the alcohol and preserve the taste, many people would be happy to have that pseudo-wine. Most people don't drink wine to get drunk, they drink it because it tastes good and happens to be a fancy drink. Liver damage isn't what they want out of it. The problem is that the main taste of wine, as opposed to grape juice, is the slightly sour punch of the alcohol. quote: 1)I believe that drinking a thousand needles would kill you, and suicide is illegal, so actually, that law is on the books. But what about drinking enough needles to not quite kill you, but to damage you. That isn't illegal. And am I the only one who finds the idea of drinking needles to be really quite bizarre? Or does 'needles' have a different meaning your side of the pond? -------------------- Riot Shields Voodoo Economics It's just business Cattle prods And the IMF I trust I can rely on your vote Posts: 530 \| Registered: Sunday, September 1 2002 07:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Thursday, June 26 2003 13:34 Profile Homepage #74 TM started it, and we just went along. I find the idea of drinking needles quite intriguing, personally... I think it might go well with skribbane on the imaginary beverage list. —Alorael, who understands that non-alcoholic wine doesn't work. He was just pointing out that the drug isn't the purpose of wine, although he isn't so sure about vodka. Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00