the government is corruptible. i'm corruptible. you're corruptible. what is the point of pointing that out?
"If government is corruptible, they share blame for corruption - especially when they make the rules."
yes... and?!
the government is a supposed to be an extension of your will. to the extent it is NOT an extension of your will is the extent it is corrupt. so we need to channel the anger in the country right now in the direction of ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION
i am arguing that government is permanently imperfect, subject to constant doubt, and yes: responsible for a stable and secure society (which leads to progress)
you seem to be arguing that since government can't ever be perfect, we're doomed, and we shouldn't even try to improve it. which makes you a hopeless, useless idealist, who doesn't matter in reality
that only economic pressure leads one to crime. yes, economic pressure does lead some to a life of crime. but there are other motivations, such as: simple lack of ethics and/ or morals
therefore its difficult to employ these men because they have proven they have no problems trangressing against other people's rights. once you have proven that you are willing to do that, anyone in their right mind would hesitate to hire you for anything. for to let such a person into your organization is to basically invite yourself to be defiled
we're talking about reality here. all you seem to be able to do is deal in idealistic platitudes that never existed and never will
when you accept that your standards are impossible, and you want to say something that matters to reality, with its essential imperfections, rather than your ridiculous pointless fantasy life of complete absolutes, get back to us
in SPITE OF their drug use, not BECAUSE of it. drug use by artists is contemporaneous with them being characters on the edge of society, which leads them to do great art AND take drugs due to various personality issues. but drug use does not CAUSE art. even artists like william s burroughs or hunter s thompson: their art was from periods of sobriety, crawling out of their overindulgence, before slipping back in. imagine what burroughs or thompson could have done if they remained drug free!
and you're saying that laws against drug use is merely a ploy to steal more rights, is that it? so there's no observance of the effects of addiction on people's lives and a desire to stop that negative effect. nah... that's completely bogus. there's only the scary bogeyman of a control freak who wants to stop everyone from having any fun... just because that's what they do
and i understand that the bars that addiction creates in your mind is more freedom destroying than the most fascist autocratic regime orwell could imagine in the furthest reaches of his imagination. you take a mind that might have explored new avenues in art, literature, music, science... and instead you have a mind that is on a constant interruption circuit "need more fix, need more fix, need more fix..." and unable to be the person they were before the addiction
in fact, the tool of the most oppressive regime possible, to rob people of their free will to the most maximum extent, would be compulsory addiction to morphine. the fight against highly addictive+inebriating substances is, in the entire history of mankind's sordid experience with drugs, on a personal and societal level, the essence of the fight for freedom
and actually, yes: if you placed anvils at the top of a building, and the wind shifted a tarp near one and knocked it off the building, you would be found criminally culpable for not recognizing the common sense danger implicit in that arrangement. why is this simple example of responsibility a strange concept to you?
tell me now again: the obvious science of addiction of something like heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.: this means absolutely nothing to you in how these substances are treated? is this your honest opinion?
except that it is slowly rebounding from a horrible situation, due to a whole number of factors, not only one dubious factor you allude to out of agenda cherry picking of your facts
furthermore, cocaine was not as widely available or historically well-known at the beginning of the timeline you cite. growth was a simple function of increased awareness and product of availability, regardless of legal landscape. again: arguing for my point about simple addictiveness of a drug being the deciding factor
but what inquiring minds want to know, is at what point do you stop living the absurdity, and acknowledge the simple obvious truth that the ADDICTIVE POTENTIAL of a substance, as a matter of simple biochemistry, is a factor. then maybe we can slowly hand hold and lead you to the next painfully obvious fact: for HIGHLY ADDICTIVE substances, availability of the substance itself is the DOMINANT factor in harm
you keep trying to draw me into wider arguments about all sorts of drugs, and paint me in ridiculous social conservative corners, when i have repeatedly told you i am for marijuana and lsd legalization, and that i stand for illegality ONLY FOR heroin, cocaine, meth, etc: only the most highly addictive+inebriating substances. for on that deep end of the pool, there is where damage to lives and society by the DRUG ITSELF is greater than damage to society by social policy and laws
the degradation to society by the most addictive+inebriating substances (heroin, cocaine, meth, etc) are more costly to society than prohibition effects. prohibition effects argue for legalization of less addictive/inebriating substances (lsd, marijuana, etc)
i've already written this. but thanks for trying to smear me with positions and attitudes i don't resemble. furiously rationalizing and denying;-)
when britain got the monopoly on opium, and began flooding china with it, consumption of opium went from 15 tons annually in 1730 to 900 tons in 1820. my thesis is that simple availability creates addicts, because of the simple obvious biochemical facts of what heroin is and what it does to the body and brain. do you deny those scientific facts? what is your alternative thesis for why opium use skyrocketed in china?
by the social degradation the easy availability of a highly addictive substance caused
but it's really amazing how, according to you, a legal edict can go into the bloodstream and change simple pharmacological biochemistry. quite amazing
that's your point, isn't it? that laws have a greater effect than how biochemistry works? that in a land with no laws, the addictiveness of something like heroin is different than a land with draconian laws?
hmmm. maybe if a country passes a law about gravity, we could float?
there's your harmless substance. there's your more exposure leads to more addicts. in fact, when china tried to fight the scourge of opium, because THE DRUG ITSELF WAS DESTROYING THEIR SOCIETY, the drug dealing mafia forced war on them to keep being addicted for the sake of profit. that's the DESTRUCTION OF FREEDOM BY DRUGS right there, asshole
any other historical or pharmacological obvious fucking truths you need help with, mr. massively in denial?
exposure to the most highly addictive and inebriating substances is all you need to create addicts. that's my fucking point. thanks for supporting my fucking point
yes, hillbilly heroin is a problem. what is your point? we make hillbilly heroin legal? ok, so more people will take it. then what? less addicts?! is that your position? what the hell is wrong with you, "genius"?
there will ALWAYS be addicts. some people in this world are just hellbent on slow motion suicide. they are pitiable and pathetic. there is always a hardcore tragic few who are eternally beyond salvation
but i'm more interested in saving the casual idiot who, if it were harder to get a certain drug, won't wind up wasting their lives away (and me and my tax dollars having to support the useless zombie). that's my simple, obvious point
and i'm a relic? for pointing out simple motherfucking rock of gibraltar obvious cause and effect of exposure to highly addictive+inebriating substances? that now YOU YOURSELF WITH YOUR LAST COMMENT MAKE THE SAME POINT OF? pffffffffft. what a moron
yeah, just call me nancy reagan and *poof*, everything about the obvious truth of the most highly addictive+inebriating substances just magically disappears from your need to address what i am saying and your desperately rationalizing, massively denying self. yeah, i'm just a relic (snicker). drugs are unicron rainbows! no downside! no threat of life destruction! even with heroin, cocaine and meth! yay!
what a blind twatstain
the truth is you're in massive denial. your words say volumes about your own problems, and nothing about reality
the more people who act like you, the more paywalls we have
if people just let the ads appear, then WE DON'T NEED PAYWALLS
isn't that a fucking radical concept? pfffft
we can have all the free content we want, without any need to pay for anything. JUST LET THE FUCKING ADS APPEAR
but no, you don't like a little ad. well ok genius, then the more people who think like you, then content creators notice. then what? then it is more likely all content is going to be locked up beyond our reach
but you're too smug and proud of yourself to see this simple economic cause and effect of your boastful freeloading
and so we will all pay the price for your foolish pride, because more of us won't get free content, because some parasitical assholes like yourself have to smugly and loudly avoid ads
asshole: go ahead and block ads. just do it QUIETLY you fucking moron, show some simple shame for your sleazy self, so we all don't have paywalls. don't be proud of a behavior you do which threatens the free content model
is that a coherent enough point for you, you cocksucking twatstain?
because the price people pay for speeding is death and dismemberment of innocents. the price is too high. so instead, we save the irresponsible and suicidal assholes from themselves, and save us from them: we post speed limits
understand reality, oh great high iq yogi?
if you speed, you increase the chance you will kill someone. if you use the most highly addictive+inebriating drugs, you risk becoming a useless zombie who can't house or feed themselves, and then we have to take care of you. well guess what: we don't want to take care of zombies. we want to prevent people from becoming zombies. got it, asshole?
tell me again, oh great swami, how addiction isn't a threat, how no lives are wasted by a previously intelligent mind reduced to a twitch: "need more fix, need more fix, need more fix..."
tell me again, oh great zombie, why we should have no speed limits and just somehow get irresponsible suicidal assholes to raise the dead and repair the severed spines
but again, its ok to adblock: no one is going to stop you. the problem is being proud of it. just be discrete, and just admit what you are: a freeloading asshole
its ok to be a freeloading asshole. as long as you are self-aware of your sleaziness and shut the fuck up about it
but if you smugly trumpet yourself in a public forum, as if you are doing nothing wrong, and i encounter your comment, i will call you out for what you are
you seem incapable of seeing your own shitty ignorant way of thinking about how the web actually fucking works financially. someday, maybe you'll understand reality. as it is now though, you're simply a parasite, and you don't even know it
"i'm a (self-declared) superman who can drive 100 mph all the time and never crash. therefore, nobody needs speed limits"
so you're telling me addiction to HIGHLY ADDICTIVE substances is a minor issue
(face palm)
in a way you're right: nobody is an addict. until they become one. and then they spend their time like you hopelessly insisting they really aren't. sound familiar?
you're ignorant. you could have an iq of 250, you're still ignorant. you can read every study of drugs that ever existed. you're still ignorant. much like a highly intelligent, highly educated anaesthesiologist... addicted to his own drugs, that he's studied at phD levels, and is fully aware of the threat of
there is no defense against addiction save one: a serious and sober (pun intended) assessment of the genuine and real threat of addiction from the use of these drugs
all your words above amount to is "addiction isn't a big deal, it isn't a threat". highly laughable, highly ignorant, unbelievably naive, incredibly irresponsible
you're words are absurd as saying gravity isn't real or the tides won't rise and fall tomorrow
but i've encountered types like you before, so earnest and eager to insist addiction isn't the threat it obviously is. this belief says nothing about reality. but it does say volumes about your own problems
you'd be a pitiable character if you weren't so dangerous to the rest of us in your massive case of denial
good luck on dealing with your problems. stop believing your problems reflects reality. they reflect your own failures. some of us have successfully escaped the trap you are in and wish others not to befall your plight, and will continue to make sure they don't wind up like you
why? because of the psychopharmacology of that particular drug
but, dear "genius", why the FUCK do you think something like heroin cocaine or meth should be legal?
you do realize that simple exposure to highly addictive+highly inebriating substances is enough to spiral lives into ruin, to turn your average human being into an addict?
in your supposed massive high iq intellect, you DO understand the biochemistry of addiction, don't you?
and if you are actually as smart as you suppose yourself to be, you're probably in denial. perhaps an addict yourself. its amazing what the average addict asshole will rationalize to avoid the truth of their predicament
try this factoid on for size, "genius": what class of doctor is most likely to become an addict? answer: anaesthesiologists. the guys who handle highly addictive substances. deduction: simple exposure is all that is needed to create addicts. intelligence and education is no defense. doctors are obviously incredibly bright well-balanced and educated individuals. so how come they are prone to addiction? because there is no defense against addiction save one: less exposure
so if you make certain highly addictive+inebriating substances legal, you increase exposure, and you get more addicts. its that simple. if you make a drug illegal, meanwhile, the committed suicidal assholes will still of course still get the drug, but the casual idiot won't. and that's all the difference the world for that casual idiot to have a fulfilling life and one as a fucking freeloading zombie. yes, you also get all of the prohibition effects as well. and i agree and acknowledge every single one of those effects: stronger mafia, addicts alienated from sources of help, etc. and, with most drugs, such as alcohol and marijuana, the prohibition effects obviously argue for legalization. however, some drugs: cocaine, heroin, meth, are such potent life destroyers that simple exposure to these substances is WORSE than prohibition effects
i mean, go ahead and block ads, nobody will ever stop you from doing that
but if you were smart, you'll shut the fuck up about it, because the more people who do that, the more the websites you like disappear. if you don't understand that, you're an idiot
show some fucking discretion, and stop telling people you block ads. its nothing to be proud of, and you are obviously so very fucking proud of your smug smarmy self
so i have ie8, firefox, chrome, safari, and opera installed on my desktop
i often find myself in this common usage scenario: 4 browsers open at the same time. ie8 opened with code being tested, opera running pandora, chrome with nytimes.com and other reading media on it, and firefox open with some online code documentation
i use those 4 browsers all the time, i don't use safari at all really unless testing code (but since its webkit like chrome, that's often redundant)
honestly, i lately have found myself prefering chrome over firefox. i love firefox, but chrome has a sleek ui and seems faster (opera's latest ui is pretty hot too, but opera has some compatibility issues, such as google map's api)
chrome just has more... chrome. consider this small bird adequately bedazzled by the shiny bells and whistles
currently i rank the browsers according to this personal preference:
1. chrome 2. firefox and opera tied for second best 3. ie8 and safari not at all
if firefox wants to win my heart back, it has to be super fast and bedazzle me with a hot ui. opera is doing a good job of that, but opera has issues
there will ALWAYS be corruption. there ALWAYS was corruption. the point is to simply minimize it
the problem is your idealism that thinks the only valid government is one which has 0% corruption. but this is an impossible goal. the real metric you should be using is 0.1% corruption is better than 10% corruption
currently, according to your way of thinking, country A of 10 million people that had no murders, no rapes, but 10 robberies is the same as country B of 10 million people that had 10,000 murders, 1,000 rapes and 100,000 robberies. both countries have crime. but according to your current way of thinking about corruption in government, both countries are the same, because there is some crime somewhere in both. how is your way of thinking useful? it isn't. your current way of thinking about corruption and government is idealistic nonsense. country A is obviously a hell of a lot better than country B, and that's the point
we are country B, in terms of corporate influence in government, and we want to be country A. so lose your ignorant naivete that assumes that anything less than 100% corruption is an abject failure. 0.1% corruption rate is not the same as 10% corruption rate, and in fact makes all the difference in the world in terms of confidence and justice
they seem to have a much better grasp on corporate power and undue financial influence than the usa does
there's another magical make believe land called "canada"
take a look at their finance laws some time
what i'm talking about is not naive. its pretty obvious. the only hurdle is our legislators who are like heroin junkies with corporate money. i didn't say it would be easy to get rid of corporate influence, but its obviously the direction we need to go in, no matter how hard
the problem is the public needs to understand the government is the problem only to the extent the government has been warped and corrupted by corporate influence. but certain bought and paid for demagogues have a horde of angry fools believing the government itself is the problem, not the real problem: the corporate money in government
here, let me break it down to the most bare bones obvious choices:
1. no government or weakened government = unfettered corporate power (what you get with your ideology, but don't admit it or don't realize it)
2. corrupt government = unfettered corporate power (our current state)
3. strong government = curtailed corporate power (where we should go)
so what we need to do is FIX the government, get the corporate influence out if it with strong finance laws. it won't be easy, our current legislators are like heroin junkies with corporate money
but what you seem to want is obviously far, far worse. with no government or weakened government, the only power around, without any checks or balances on it, are the corporations. how does the individual defend themselves form corporate abuses in such an environment? the only tool the individual has to protect themselves from corporations is a strong government with a mandate to protect them. do you have another way?
you tell me how to solve the problem of corporate influence if you weaken the government
you need a strong government with strong regulatory powers to manage the corporations. do you know a way of managing the power of corporations and the potential abuse there without government?
the point is to FIX the government, get the influence of corporate money out of it
but you want to weaken the only tool you have against corporate power
Slashdot Mirror
the government is corruptible. i'm corruptible. you're corruptible. what is the point of pointing that out?
"If government is corruptible, they share blame for corruption - especially when they make the rules."
yes... and?!
the government is a supposed to be an extension of your will. to the extent it is NOT an extension of your will is the extent it is corrupt. so we need to channel the anger in the country right now in the direction of ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION
why is it so hard for you to grasp this?
i am arguing that government is permanently imperfect, subject to constant doubt, and yes: responsible for a stable and secure society (which leads to progress)
you seem to be arguing that since government can't ever be perfect, we're doomed, and we shouldn't even try to improve it. which makes you a hopeless, useless idealist, who doesn't matter in reality
that only economic pressure leads one to crime. yes, economic pressure does lead some to a life of crime. but there are other motivations, such as: simple lack of ethics and/ or morals
therefore its difficult to employ these men because they have proven they have no problems trangressing against other people's rights. once you have proven that you are willing to do that, anyone in their right mind would hesitate to hire you for anything. for to let such a person into your organization is to basically invite yourself to be defiled
we're talking about reality here. all you seem to be able to do is deal in idealistic platitudes that never existed and never will
when you accept that your standards are impossible, and you want to say something that matters to reality, with its essential imperfections, rather than your ridiculous pointless fantasy life of complete absolutes, get back to us
in SPITE OF their drug use, not BECAUSE of it. drug use by artists is contemporaneous with them being characters on the edge of society, which leads them to do great art AND take drugs due to various personality issues. but drug use does not CAUSE art. even artists like william s burroughs or hunter s thompson: their art was from periods of sobriety, crawling out of their overindulgence, before slipping back in. imagine what burroughs or thompson could have done if they remained drug free!
and you're saying that laws against drug use is merely a ploy to steal more rights, is that it? so there's no observance of the effects of addiction on people's lives and a desire to stop that negative effect. nah... that's completely bogus. there's only the scary bogeyman of a control freak who wants to stop everyone from having any fun... just because that's what they do
you're absurd
and i understand that the bars that addiction creates in your mind is more freedom destroying than the most fascist autocratic regime orwell could imagine in the furthest reaches of his imagination. you take a mind that might have explored new avenues in art, literature, music, science... and instead you have a mind that is on a constant interruption circuit "need more fix, need more fix, need more fix..." and unable to be the person they were before the addiction
in fact, the tool of the most oppressive regime possible, to rob people of their free will to the most maximum extent, would be compulsory addiction to morphine. the fight against highly addictive+inebriating substances is, in the entire history of mankind's sordid experience with drugs, on a personal and societal level, the essence of the fight for freedom
and actually, yes: if you placed anvils at the top of a building, and the wind shifted a tarp near one and knocked it off the building, you would be found criminally culpable for not recognizing the common sense danger implicit in that arrangement. why is this simple example of responsibility a strange concept to you?
tell me now again: the obvious science of addiction of something like heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.: this means absolutely nothing to you in how these substances are treated? is this your honest opinion?
except that it is slowly rebounding from a horrible situation, due to a whole number of factors, not only one dubious factor you allude to out of agenda cherry picking of your facts
furthermore, cocaine was not as widely available or historically well-known at the beginning of the timeline you cite. growth was a simple function of increased awareness and product of availability, regardless of legal landscape. again: arguing for my point about simple addictiveness of a drug being the deciding factor
but what inquiring minds want to know, is at what point do you stop living the absurdity, and acknowledge the simple obvious truth that the ADDICTIVE POTENTIAL of a substance, as a matter of simple biochemistry, is a factor. then maybe we can slowly hand hold and lead you to the next painfully obvious fact: for HIGHLY ADDICTIVE substances, availability of the substance itself is the DOMINANT factor in harm
you keep trying to draw me into wider arguments about all sorts of drugs, and paint me in ridiculous social conservative corners, when i have repeatedly told you i am for marijuana and lsd legalization, and that i stand for illegality ONLY FOR heroin, cocaine, meth, etc: only the most highly addictive+inebriating substances. for on that deep end of the pool, there is where damage to lives and society by the DRUG ITSELF is greater than damage to society by social policy and laws
the degradation to society by the most addictive+inebriating substances (heroin, cocaine, meth, etc) are more costly to society than prohibition effects. prohibition effects argue for legalization of less addictive/inebriating substances (lsd, marijuana, etc)
i've already written this. but thanks for trying to smear me with positions and attitudes i don't resemble. furiously rationalizing and denying ;-)
when britain got the monopoly on opium, and began flooding china with it, consumption of opium went from 15 tons annually in 1730 to 900 tons in 1820. my thesis is that simple availability creates addicts, because of the simple obvious biochemical facts of what heroin is and what it does to the body and brain. do you deny those scientific facts? what is your alternative thesis for why opium use skyrocketed in china?
by the social degradation the easy availability of a highly addictive substance caused
but it's really amazing how, according to you, a legal edict can go into the bloodstream and change simple pharmacological biochemistry. quite amazing
that's your point, isn't it? that laws have a greater effect than how biochemistry works? that in a land with no laws, the addictiveness of something like heroin is different than a land with draconian laws?
hmmm. maybe if a country passes a law about gravity, we could float?
(snicker)
if we had no speed limits, people would drive slower!
unfettered exposure to METH, COKE, and HEROIN means less addicts!
yay!
what a retard
and you want to talk history of drug use before 20th century?
ok, asshole, let's talk about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
there's your harmless substance. there's your more exposure leads to more addicts. in fact, when china tried to fight the scourge of opium, because THE DRUG ITSELF WAS DESTROYING THEIR SOCIETY, the drug dealing mafia forced war on them to keep being addicted for the sake of profit. that's the DESTRUCTION OF FREEDOM BY DRUGS right there, asshole
any other historical or pharmacological obvious fucking truths you need help with, mr. massively in denial?
that i was going to get a smug parasite to feel shame?
"the more people who act like you, the more paywalls we have
So?"
and there we have it, in a nutshell
thanks for everything, asshole
exposure to the most highly addictive and inebriating substances is all you need to create addicts. that's my fucking point. thanks for supporting my fucking point
yes, hillbilly heroin is a problem. what is your point? we make hillbilly heroin legal? ok, so more people will take it. then what? less addicts?! is that your position? what the hell is wrong with you, "genius"?
there will ALWAYS be addicts. some people in this world are just hellbent on slow motion suicide. they are pitiable and pathetic. there is always a hardcore tragic few who are eternally beyond salvation
but i'm more interested in saving the casual idiot who, if it were harder to get a certain drug, won't wind up wasting their lives away (and me and my tax dollars having to support the useless zombie). that's my simple, obvious point
and i'm a relic? for pointing out simple motherfucking rock of gibraltar obvious cause and effect of exposure to highly addictive+inebriating substances? that now YOU YOURSELF WITH YOUR LAST COMMENT MAKE THE SAME POINT OF? pffffffffft. what a moron
yeah, just call me nancy reagan and *poof*, everything about the obvious truth of the most highly addictive+inebriating substances just magically disappears from your need to address what i am saying and your desperately rationalizing, massively denying self. yeah, i'm just a relic (snicker). drugs are unicron rainbows! no downside! no threat of life destruction! even with heroin, cocaine and meth! yay!
what a blind twatstain
the truth is you're in massive denial. your words say volumes about your own problems, and nothing about reality
the more people who act like you, the more paywalls we have
if people just let the ads appear, then WE DON'T NEED PAYWALLS
isn't that a fucking radical concept? pfffft
we can have all the free content we want, without any need to pay for anything. JUST LET THE FUCKING ADS APPEAR
but no, you don't like a little ad. well ok genius, then the more people who think like you, then content creators notice. then what? then it is more likely all content is going to be locked up beyond our reach
but you're too smug and proud of yourself to see this simple economic cause and effect of your boastful freeloading
and so we will all pay the price for your foolish pride, because more of us won't get free content, because some parasitical assholes like yourself have to smugly and loudly avoid ads
asshole: go ahead and block ads. just do it QUIETLY you fucking moron, show some simple shame for your sleazy self, so we all don't have paywalls. don't be proud of a behavior you do which threatens the free content model
is that a coherent enough point for you, you cocksucking twatstain?
why do we have speed limits, dear einstein?
because the price people pay for speeding is death and dismemberment of innocents. the price is too high. so instead, we save the irresponsible and suicidal assholes from themselves, and save us from them: we post speed limits
understand reality, oh great high iq yogi?
if you speed, you increase the chance you will kill someone. if you use the most highly addictive+inebriating drugs, you risk becoming a useless zombie who can't house or feed themselves, and then we have to take care of you. well guess what: we don't want to take care of zombies. we want to prevent people from becoming zombies. got it, asshole?
tell me again, oh great swami, how addiction isn't a threat, how no lives are wasted by a previously intelligent mind reduced to a twitch: "need more fix, need more fix, need more fix..."
tell me again, oh great zombie, why we should have no speed limits and just somehow get irresponsible suicidal assholes to raise the dead and repair the severed spines
you are truly one ignorant irresponsible moron
you mean ECONOMICS?
ignorant smug jackass
the sites you use just appear by magic?
they get PAID for you ignorant tool
but again, its ok to adblock: no one is going to stop you. the problem is being proud of it. just be discrete, and just admit what you are: a freeloading asshole
its ok to be a freeloading asshole. as long as you are self-aware of your sleaziness and shut the fuck up about it
but if you smugly trumpet yourself in a public forum, as if you are doing nothing wrong, and i encounter your comment, i will call you out for what you are
you seem incapable of seeing your own shitty ignorant way of thinking about how the web actually fucking works financially. someday, maybe you'll understand reality. as it is now though, you're simply a parasite, and you don't even know it
this is your argument:
"i'm a (self-declared) superman who can drive 100 mph all the time and never crash. therefore, nobody needs speed limits"
so you're telling me addiction to HIGHLY ADDICTIVE substances is a minor issue
(face palm)
in a way you're right: nobody is an addict. until they become one. and then they spend their time like you hopelessly insisting they really aren't. sound familiar?
you're ignorant. you could have an iq of 250, you're still ignorant. you can read every study of drugs that ever existed. you're still ignorant. much like a highly intelligent, highly educated anaesthesiologist... addicted to his own drugs, that he's studied at phD levels, and is fully aware of the threat of
there is no defense against addiction save one: a serious and sober (pun intended) assessment of the genuine and real threat of addiction from the use of these drugs
all your words above amount to is "addiction isn't a big deal, it isn't a threat". highly laughable, highly ignorant, unbelievably naive, incredibly irresponsible
you're words are absurd as saying gravity isn't real or the tides won't rise and fall tomorrow
but i've encountered types like you before, so earnest and eager to insist addiction isn't the threat it obviously is. this belief says nothing about reality. but it does say volumes about your own problems
you'd be a pitiable character if you weren't so dangerous to the rest of us in your massive case of denial
good luck on dealing with your problems. stop believing your problems reflects reality. they reflect your own failures. some of us have successfully escaped the trap you are in and wish others not to befall your plight, and will continue to make sure they don't wind up like you
get help fool
bookmark your comment above
when the content you like disappears, you'll want to know why
ignorant twatstain
WHO PAYS FOR THE SHIT YOU LIKE, ASSHOLE
THE ADS DO, ASSHOLE
obviously
why? because of the psychopharmacology of that particular drug
but, dear "genius", why the FUCK do you think something like heroin cocaine or meth should be legal?
you do realize that simple exposure to highly addictive+highly inebriating substances is enough to spiral lives into ruin, to turn your average human being into an addict?
in your supposed massive high iq intellect, you DO understand the biochemistry of addiction, don't you?
and if you are actually as smart as you suppose yourself to be, you're probably in denial. perhaps an addict yourself. its amazing what the average addict asshole will rationalize to avoid the truth of their predicament
try this factoid on for size, "genius": what class of doctor is most likely to become an addict? answer: anaesthesiologists. the guys who handle highly addictive substances. deduction: simple exposure is all that is needed to create addicts. intelligence and education is no defense. doctors are obviously incredibly bright well-balanced and educated individuals. so how come they are prone to addiction? because there is no defense against addiction save one: less exposure
so if you make certain highly addictive+inebriating substances legal, you increase exposure, and you get more addicts. its that simple. if you make a drug illegal, meanwhile, the committed suicidal assholes will still of course still get the drug, but the casual idiot won't. and that's all the difference the world for that casual idiot to have a fulfilling life and one as a fucking freeloading zombie. yes, you also get all of the prohibition effects as well. and i agree and acknowledge every single one of those effects: stronger mafia, addicts alienated from sources of help, etc. and, with most drugs, such as alcohol and marijuana, the prohibition effects obviously argue for legalization. however, some drugs: cocaine, heroin, meth, are such potent life destroyers that simple exposure to these substances is WORSE than prohibition effects
how do you think the shit you like gets paid for?
i mean, go ahead and block ads, nobody will ever stop you from doing that
but if you were smart, you'll shut the fuck up about it, because the more people who do that, the more the websites you like disappear. if you don't understand that, you're an idiot
show some fucking discretion, and stop telling people you block ads. its nothing to be proud of, and you are obviously so very fucking proud of your smug smarmy self
if you don't like my writing style, don't read my posts, and don't reply
go fuck yourself twatstain
so i have ie8, firefox, chrome, safari, and opera installed on my desktop
i often find myself in this common usage scenario: 4 browsers open at the same time. ie8 opened with code being tested, opera running pandora, chrome with nytimes.com and other reading media on it, and firefox open with some online code documentation
i use those 4 browsers all the time, i don't use safari at all really unless testing code (but since its webkit like chrome, that's often redundant)
honestly, i lately have found myself prefering chrome over firefox. i love firefox, but chrome has a sleek ui and seems faster (opera's latest ui is pretty hot too, but opera has some compatibility issues, such as google map's api)
chrome just has more... chrome. consider this small bird adequately bedazzled by the shiny bells and whistles
currently i rank the browsers according to this personal preference:
1. chrome
2. firefox and opera tied for second best
3. ie8 and safari not at all
if firefox wants to win my heart back, it has to be super fast and bedazzle me with a hot ui. opera is doing a good job of that, but opera has issues
there will ALWAYS be corruption. there ALWAYS was corruption. the point is to simply minimize it
the problem is your idealism that thinks the only valid government is one which has 0% corruption. but this is an impossible goal. the real metric you should be using is 0.1% corruption is better than 10% corruption
currently, according to your way of thinking, country A of 10 million people that had no murders, no rapes, but 10 robberies is the same as country B of 10 million people that had 10,000 murders, 1,000 rapes and 100,000 robberies. both countries have crime. but according to your current way of thinking about corruption in government, both countries are the same, because there is some crime somewhere in both. how is your way of thinking useful? it isn't. your current way of thinking about corruption and government is idealistic nonsense. country A is obviously a hell of a lot better than country B, and that's the point
we are country B, in terms of corporate influence in government, and we want to be country A. so lose your ignorant naivete that assumes that anything less than 100% corruption is an abject failure. 0.1% corruption rate is not the same as 10% corruption rate, and in fact makes all the difference in the world in terms of confidence and justice
call "europe"
they seem to have a much better grasp on corporate power and undue financial influence than the usa does
there's another magical make believe land called "canada"
take a look at their finance laws some time
what i'm talking about is not naive. its pretty obvious. the only hurdle is our legislators who are like heroin junkies with corporate money. i didn't say it would be easy to get rid of corporate influence, but its obviously the direction we need to go in, no matter how hard
the problem is the public needs to understand the government is the problem only to the extent the government has been warped and corrupted by corporate influence. but certain bought and paid for demagogues have a horde of angry fools believing the government itself is the problem, not the real problem: the corporate money in government
here, let me break it down to the most bare bones obvious choices:
1. no government or weakened government = unfettered corporate power (what you get with your ideology, but don't admit it or don't realize it)
2. corrupt government = unfettered corporate power (our current state)
3. strong government = curtailed corporate power (where we should go)
so what we need to do is FIX the government, get the corporate influence out if it with strong finance laws. it won't be easy, our current legislators are like heroin junkies with corporate money
but what you seem to want is obviously far, far worse. with no government or weakened government, the only power around, without any checks or balances on it, are the corporations. how does the individual defend themselves form corporate abuses in such an environment? the only tool the individual has to protect themselves from corporations is a strong government with a mandate to protect them. do you have another way?
government is the solution to corporate influence
you tell me how to solve the problem of corporate influence if you weaken the government
you need a strong government with strong regulatory powers to manage the corporations. do you know a way of managing the power of corporations and the potential abuse there without government?
the point is to FIX the government, get the influence of corporate money out of it
but you want to weaken the only tool you have against corporate power