A majority of americans today believe that there has been some kind of conspiracy around Kennedy's murder. Oliver Stone's film is probably the number 1 culprit for this. The ever helpful BBC made a documentary which simply blasted the conspiracy theory
The simple fact that they sealed the documents for 70 years, the life expectancy, means that when the docs are released, anybody who once remembered where they were when JFK was shot will be dead, and therefore there will be no one able to know if the docs are pure BS.
I don't know WHAT they are trying to cover up, but there sure is a damn conspiracy to hide something.
Therefore am not suffering any form of mental illness...simple as that. It's my body that doesn't fit.
I'd say there might be some denial. There is obviously a lot of frustration and anger.
Personally I think its a mental condition that is treated with surgery. Your mind doesn't fit your body? You seem to be caught in some kind of cartesian fallacy about your mind being independant from your body... These kinds of treatments aren't as much about the nature of the illness as they are about the limited means available to modern medecine and what can be done to get the best result.
Seriously dude (or dudette... whatever), if your body works fine, but you mentally can't cope with being in it, then the problem is obviously with the mind in the body, not the body itself. I don't really care btw, if you can't cope being the way you are and there's a way to change you so you'll cope better, great, go for it. Live and let live, all that jazz. You're being quite vocal about it though, and ruining our nice cafeine thread. Now, if you're a transexual with a cafeine addiction, then by all means, enlighten us about your unique perspective.
One HUGE misconception about being trans is that it is closely tied in with homosexuality. In fact, the two are not related in the least. I have always liked girls, and I will continue to like girls once I have transitioned.
You are rejecting your male self, doesn't surprise me in the least that you wouldn't be attracted to other males.
Far from removing the bad from the gene pool, the deaths of the people who've tried this and failed (well, *really* failed) have removed physicists who were inventive enough to try something new, were financially successful enough to purchase the needed equipment, and cared enough to try it. Maybe their *idea* achieved a Darwin Award but, people like these?
We're weeding out the people who don't test their designs sufficiently and safely?
In the age old quest for human flight, there were a lot of fatalities. Like the kids who jump off buildings thinking they can fly, they should have tried jumping off the couch first. You can test your ideas safely, if you don't, we reserve the right to ridicule you as a warning to others.
I personally know people who wound up hooked on crack, because they rationalized it like this: "everything they told me about marijuana was complete bullshit, so why should I believe what they tell me about crack?"
I would love to see a class action lawsuit against the government for this.
False propaganda, failing in their duty to educate the public...it'll never happen, but it would be sweet.
Go back in time and ask me that in the 20's. Or go to Utah and ask it there right now.
There is no hypocrisy, because drinking and smoking cigarettes is fully covered within the law. Smoking pot is not.
There is hypocrisy(a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not) BECAUSE all 3 actions are similar, yet treated in 3 completely different ways under the law.
The law considers that Cannabis Sativa is addictive. Its been proven its not. It considers that it is without medical benefit, its been proven to be the contrary. Yet the law still holds on to these falshoods. That is hypocrisy.
It is classified in the same category of substances as heroin! No one but an hypocrite can support this.
I want to know how many pot-related questions they get submitted for this event, and infer from those numbers what percentage of the population should be in jail.
According to surveys, nearly 50% of people have smoked at least once. That's nearly half of the population that should be imprisoned. Don't tell me this law makes sense.
Bush, Clinton, Gore, Schwartzenegger and a host of other polticians have smoked pot (Or in Bush's case, snorted coke); and are highly successful poeple.
There is no one I would more gladly see dead in the street than a person who would have others go to jail for a crime they commited with impunity.
I can tell you what is illegal about smoking pot. SMOKING POT is illegal.
Smoking pot is illegal because one puff will make you hopelessly addicted and violently insane... Of course, that is a FUCKING LIE, but since its been written into law, its ok to destroy people's lives based on that law?
If you want the law changed, fine, try to get the law changed. You have to do the legwork.
And when, say, they do get the law changed, like in California, the federal government steps in and says "no" and arrests people anyway. Fantastic.
I have no problem with the cops picking your ass up for breaking the law.
Tell me, did you have a problem with Saddam's secret police picking people up for breaking laws like "don't diss Saddam"? I mean, that was the law, so it was ok, right? I mean, no law as ever been unjust or anything. Laws are these magical pieces of absolute that fly in from heaven and makes all things ok as long as they are according to the law... Lalala!
I guess you also have no problem with the Nazi cops beating people's ass for breaking their laws, like the "no jew owned businesses" laws, or "no being gay" laws, or "no dissing the furher" laws. They were laws, so you agree with them, right?
There'll only be another black market to spring up in its place to sell untaxed weed. Kinda like the present-day moonshiners.
Sure, but then people will have the option to buy from criminals, instead of being forced to become criminals themselves and be accomplices of that "crime".
And frankly, I would love it if my government turned pot into an income rather than an expense, even if there will always be people making tremendous efforts not to pay taxes, there will be those that don't. (Insert comment about growing your own not producing taxe revenue, comment about taxes on miracle grow and pots to plant you pot)
THCs, plural. THC is a name for a family of substances, there are about 60 different molecules that have been identified that can each be correctly called "THC".
About 28 of those have been found to have effects on the human mind or body. None of them have a known toxicity level that could possibly lead to a lethal overdose.
P.S. Sorry to hear about your multiple scerosis, I hope modern medecine makes some huge leap soon and cures you.
The Government should perform Civil Unions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples alike. Marriage should be left to the couple's religious institution of choice.
Sounds like a plan. But there's SO much legal mumbo-jumbo revolving around marriage. Taxes, inheritance, etc, etc, etc. That kind of reform is a tremendous undertaking.
Dude, it's called "Canada". Myself and 2 other friends will be moving there shortly for this reason. This nation's drug laws are embarassing and puritanical.
The rumours of Canada's rational drug laws have been greatly exagerated.
i.e. They wanted to decriminalize simple possession, but didn't. The U.S. won't let them. Seriously, I'm not kidding, they shelved the proposed changes to the law because the D.E.A. said they didn't think it was a good idea, and vaguely hinted to the negative consequences that such a law would have on commerce between the two nations.
Most gay couples I know just want the same legal guarantees as different-sex couples. Such as, if you have lived with your partner in a flat for 20 years and he dies, you don't want to get kicked out of the appartment overnight.
Or, if your partner had an accident and is in intensive care, you don't want to be told by hospital personnel that you can't see him because you are "not family"
Hence the "civil union" thing. Outdated rules aren't treating civil unions as "real" unions, which is stupid. They should fight to have these unions recognised as "real" instead of trying to wriggle into marriages for convenience.
And frankly, the rule about not seeing someone unless you're "family" is irrational. Some family members care less about some people than their friends do.
I understand that there are advantages that marriage gives that civil union doesn't, but the fight should be at the civil union level, not at the marriage level.
Like it or not, a lot of guys used [polygamy] as a means to nail 14, 15, and 16 year old girls
Yeah, but that's really about extending the statuatory rape concept to include these cases. Why is it illegal for a 60 year old to have sex with a 14yo UNLESS they get married? Hell, just keep it illegal all the way.
I don't think that rules for consenting adults should apply to kids.
Slashdot Mirror
A majority of americans today believe that there has been some kind of conspiracy around Kennedy's murder. Oliver Stone's film is probably the number 1 culprit for this. The ever helpful BBC made a documentary which simply blasted the conspiracy theory
The simple fact that they sealed the documents for 70 years, the life expectancy, means that when the docs are released, anybody who once remembered where they were when JFK was shot will be dead, and therefore there will be no one able to know if the docs are pure BS.
I don't know WHAT they are trying to cover up, but there sure is a damn conspiracy to hide something.
First, if you want people to support you don't be a dumb ass and do not insult people.
Hahahaha! : )
These days, it's not the Iraqi government that's kidnapping, torturing, and murdering people, but a group of loosely-affiliated amateurs.
And those brave soldiers of the U.S. military.
Off course, if you commit the additional crime of making photo evidence of your actions, you will be court martialed...
I'm pretty sure they're doing much less volume.
Well, over ten thousand dead in a year...that's rather a lot I would think.
you're not going to change the orientation or insulation of the whole house once it's built.
;-)
Not with that attitude you won't!
Therefore am not suffering any form of mental illness...simple as that. It's my body that doesn't fit.
I'd say there might be some denial. There is obviously a lot of frustration and anger.
Personally I think its a mental condition that is treated with surgery.
Your mind doesn't fit your body? You seem to be caught in some kind of cartesian fallacy about your mind being independant from your body... These kinds of treatments aren't as much about the nature of the illness as they are about the limited means available to modern medecine and what can be done to get the best result.
Seriously dude (or dudette... whatever), if your body works fine, but you mentally can't cope with being in it, then the problem is obviously with the mind in the body, not the body itself. I don't really care btw, if you can't cope being the way you are and there's a way to change you so you'll cope better, great, go for it. Live and let live, all that jazz. You're being quite vocal about it though, and ruining our nice cafeine thread. Now, if you're a transexual with a cafeine addiction, then by all means, enlighten us about your unique perspective.
One HUGE misconception about being trans is that it is closely tied in with homosexuality. In fact, the two are not related in the least. I have always liked girls, and I will continue to like girls once I have transitioned.
You are rejecting your male self, doesn't surprise me in the least that you wouldn't be attracted to other males.
Look, I'm no aeronautical engineer, but it sure does fly and it does look like a genuinely new idea.
It sure is neat, but it doesn't glide. One bird flies in there, and down you go.
So, it needs a bit of work before its ready for prime time.
Far from removing the bad from the gene pool, the deaths of the people who've tried this and failed (well, *really* failed) have removed physicists who were inventive enough to try something new, were financially successful enough to purchase the needed equipment, and cared enough to try it. Maybe their *idea* achieved a Darwin Award but, people like these?
We're weeding out the people who don't test their designs sufficiently and safely?
In the age old quest for human flight, there were a lot of fatalities. Like the kids who jump off buildings thinking they can fly, they should have tried jumping off the couch first. You can test your ideas safely, if you don't, we reserve the right to ridicule you as a warning to others.
No one came over to monitor the 1880 election after the 1876 election so why are they "monitoring" the Presidental Election this time?
Because no one monitored anybody else's elections in the 19th century.
And they want marriage because they want their relationships treated as equal
Tell me I'm normal! Pleeeeeaaaaaase!
Christians have rejected this archaic notion of "patriarchy" as the dominant form of social relations.
What's your last name?
Is it the same as your mother's maiden name?
Ye gods, aren't you an arrogant jerk.
Just what the world needs, another angry feminist
Don't call me a feminist!
I personally know people who wound up hooked on crack, because they rationalized it like this: "everything they told me about marijuana was complete bullshit, so why should I believe what they tell me about crack?"
I would love to see a class action lawsuit against the government for this.
False propaganda, failing in their duty to educate the public...it'll never happen, but it would be sweet.
Tell me what is illegal about having a drink?
Go back in time and ask me that in the 20's.
Or go to Utah and ask it there right now.
There is no hypocrisy, because drinking and smoking cigarettes is fully covered within the law. Smoking pot is not.
There is hypocrisy(a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not) BECAUSE all 3 actions are similar, yet treated in 3 completely different ways under the law.
The law considers that Cannabis Sativa is addictive. Its been proven its not. It considers that it is without medical benefit, its been proven to be the contrary. Yet the law still holds on to these falshoods. That is hypocrisy.
It is classified in the same category of substances as heroin! No one but an hypocrite can support this.
I want to know how many pot-related questions they get submitted for this event, and infer from those numbers what percentage of the population should be in jail.
According to surveys, nearly 50% of people have smoked at least once.
That's nearly half of the population that should be imprisoned. Don't tell me this law makes sense.
Bush, Clinton, Gore, Schwartzenegger and a host of other polticians have smoked pot (Or in Bush's case, snorted coke); and are highly successful poeple.
There is no one I would more gladly see dead in the street than a person who would have others go to jail for a crime they commited with impunity.
That kind of hypocrisy just makes see red...
That's like saying, "I'm moving to England because Cricket just ain't popular enough here."
No, that's like saying "I'm moving to england because they are threatning to put me in JAIL for playing cricket here".
You've had a part in what has become law and what has not.
You think he was around to vote in the 30's when this became law?
Other simple laws:
Do any of these sound like laws that the "land of the free" would have?
No? Neither does yours.
I can tell you what is illegal about smoking pot. SMOKING POT is illegal.
Smoking pot is illegal because one puff will make you hopelessly addicted and violently insane...
Of course, that is a FUCKING LIE, but since its been written into law, its ok to destroy people's lives based on that law?
If you want the law changed, fine, try to get the law changed. You have to do the legwork.
And when, say, they do get the law changed, like in California, the federal government steps in and says "no" and arrests people anyway.
Fantastic.
I have no problem with the cops picking your ass up for breaking the law.
Tell me, did you have a problem with Saddam's secret police picking people up for breaking laws like "don't diss Saddam"? I mean, that was the law, so it was ok, right? I mean, no law as ever been unjust or anything. Laws are these magical pieces of absolute that fly in from heaven and makes all things ok as long as they are according to the law... Lalala!
I guess you also have no problem with the Nazi cops beating people's ass for breaking their laws, like the "no jew owned businesses" laws, or "no being gay" laws, or "no dissing the furher" laws. They were laws, so you agree with them, right?
There'll only be another black market to spring up in its place to sell untaxed weed. Kinda like the present-day moonshiners.
Sure, but then people will have the option to buy from criminals, instead of being forced to become criminals themselves and be accomplices of that "crime".
And frankly, I would love it if my government turned pot into an income rather than an expense, even if there will always be people making tremendous efforts not to pay taxes, there will be those that don't. (Insert comment about growing your own not producing taxe revenue, comment about taxes on miracle grow and pots to plant you pot)
THC (the active ingredient in pot)
THCs, plural.
THC is a name for a family of substances, there are about 60 different molecules that have been identified that can each be correctly called "THC".
About 28 of those have been found to have effects on the human mind or body. None of them have a known toxicity level that could possibly lead to a lethal overdose.
P.S. Sorry to hear about your multiple scerosis, I hope modern medecine makes some huge leap soon and cures you.
The Government should perform Civil Unions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples alike. Marriage should be left to the couple's religious institution of choice.
Sounds like a plan. But there's SO much legal mumbo-jumbo revolving around marriage. Taxes, inheritance, etc, etc, etc.
That kind of reform is a tremendous undertaking.
Dude, it's called "Canada". Myself and 2 other friends will be moving there shortly for this reason. This nation's drug laws are embarassing and puritanical.
The rumours of Canada's rational drug laws have been greatly exagerated.
i.e. They wanted to decriminalize simple possession, but didn't. The U.S. won't let them. Seriously, I'm not kidding, they shelved the proposed changes to the law because the D.E.A. said they didn't think it was a good idea, and vaguely hinted to the negative consequences that such a law would have on commerce between the two nations.
Most gay couples I know just want the same legal guarantees as different-sex couples. Such as, if you have lived with your partner in a flat for 20 years and he dies, you don't want to get kicked out of the appartment overnight.
Or, if your partner had an accident and is in intensive care, you don't want to be told by hospital personnel that you can't see him because you are "not family"
Hence the "civil union" thing.
Outdated rules aren't treating civil unions as "real" unions, which is stupid. They should fight to have these unions recognised as "real" instead of trying to wriggle into marriages for convenience.
And frankly, the rule about not seeing someone unless you're "family" is irrational. Some family members care less about some people than their friends do.
I understand that there are advantages that marriage gives that civil union doesn't, but the fight should be at the civil union level, not at the marriage level.
Like it or not, a lot of guys used [polygamy] as a means to nail 14, 15, and 16 year old girls
Yeah, but that's really about extending the statuatory rape concept to include these cases. Why is it illegal for a 60 year old to have sex with a 14yo UNLESS they get married? Hell, just keep it illegal all the way.
I don't think that rules for consenting adults should apply to kids.