You know of all my personal experiences and knowledge how exactly? Simple answer: You don't. Your claim of intellectual high ground is based on an appeal to a non-existent authority.
Contrary to how they are often depicted, drugs are typically pretty boring.
Your assumption seems to be that the only reason people do drugs is for entertainment. Which is a complete bullshit argument with little basis in reality. People use drugs for reasons like depression from any number of causes, wanting to fit in to any number of circumstances, and from peer pressure (resulting from statements like TFA claims where "everyone is doing it but nobody admits it", and "you are a better person when using LSD"
LSD is not necessarily much more inebriating than alcohol, and you're pretty unlikely to get any open-eye visual hallucinations. There are other drugs that are better for that, but LSD is really just a cheap feeling of enlightenment.
Comparing LSD to alcohol ignores the effects of both drugs on a human. LSD has been known to cause suicides, persistent psychological problems like paranoia and neurotic behavior, and since the body has a hard time processing LSD out of the system echos are a big problem. But hey, you are the person who claimed the intellectual high ground, why don't you bring any of those up?
That's not what confirmation bias is, as well. I understand that much of your worldview is predicated on your inability to distinguish logical fallacies from empirical fallacies, but you're really being aggressively stupid today.
The person who refuses to even acknowledge well documented science regarding the impact of drugs in general, in addition to the drug in question, and citing personal anecdotes which agree with their opinion is _EXACTLY_ what confirmation bias is. My world view is based on facts, which you are simply ignoring. Why not perform a basic web search for "negative effects of LSD" as a start.
More importantly, tell me how glorifying and normalizing the drugs is _not_ harmful for society? We know that it is, and cigarettes and alcohol are two very easy examples. That was my position and point from the start, which you simply ignore repeatedly. You doing drugs is not the same thing as you publishing an article noting 0 negative effects from LSD, claiming "everyone does it", and claiming "you need it to be successful". That type of article targets the weakest in society and pushes them toward usage. It's not neutral in any way shape or form.
Tommy John surgery used to be for injuries to pitchers. It has been glorified and normalized so that many very young kids are getting the surgery, often causing long term permanent injury and disability. You don't see a problem with popular web pages posting articles with claims "Tommy Johns surgery makes you a better pitcher, and everyone is doing it"? You really don't believe that this impacts young athletes? Parents even thinking they need to push their young adult/teen just a bit further and promote the surgery?
The damages from drugs are often similar to bad surgery, with permanent life long impact. Not every time, and not every case, but a measurable enough percentage where we have made the drug illegal.
The claims in TFA are roughly that "you need it to be better", and "everyone is doing it but nobody is admitting it". Those two statements can be said to be both glorifying and normalizing the drug, which impacts the most susceptible.
Again, my argument isn't that you can't experiment or do the drugs yourself. My argument is that it should not be glorified.
Sorry, but if you have no clue about drugs then stay out of the discussion.
Ahh, the old appeal to the non existent authority. Bravo sir, you have demonstrated that you simply don't want to have a debate or have your beliefs challenged. Well, too bad for you, you gave more to argue.
Most drugs are "ok".
Society/laws that outlaw them makes them not ok, blah blah blah I know what "pure" is better than you blah
You really can't see the obvious conflict between those two statements? Most drugs are not okay which is why they are illegal. If you need a historical reference, try "Opium" and "Opium Dens"
Most drugs _ARE_ addictive. The difference happens to be primarily between whether they are physically addictive or psychologically addictive. The latter is generally much harder to treat. No personal anecdotes needed to back facts, go study the actual science. Your confirmation bias based on people you know who did harder drugs than you included.
I don't drink soda, don't drink caffeine boosted (energy drinks), don't drink alcohol, don't eat or drink much sugar. When I have sugar, it's generally natural in fruits. Amazingly I know and work with plenty of people who are similar.
Fairy tales are amusing, and your amusement comes from telling one to yourself.
It is quite a leap to go from caffeine to LSD, or claim that LSD is fine because you drink a glass of wine on occasion. You may want to think over that bit of logic.
Confirmation bias. You should broaden your perspective.
Why not use the ACTUAL definition of the word instead of a synonym which seems to be an attempt to discount my position? Because the actual definition backs my position?
Spiritual
1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal spiritual needs
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters spiritual songs
b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal spiritual authority lords spiritual
3: concerned with religious values
4: related or joined in spirit our spiritual home his spiritual heir
5a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic
Amazing that you don't even bother to argue against my original point, but toss around insults. Can we have this company email your kids and/or grandkids articles talking about how "all the successful people are using LSD" and how the experience is purely "Spiritual"? You don't think that would have an impact on them and their growth if they were teens/young adults? You can't be that naive.
Oh don't worry, I'm not for the legal prescripts in many cases either. Doctors hand out so many types of synthetic codeine that a whole new drug market popped up for treating side effects of synthetic codeine.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also very sympathetic to people with pain. I have been on the operating table numerous times, and have chronic pain from injuries. Teaching people to get off pain medication is lost to most people in medicine, because they can be sued for not handing out more and more drugs.
I'm fine with people abusing themselves, and am purely libertarian in that regard. Drink as much as you want, Smoke dope, shoot heroin, drop acid/LSD, eat peyote, live on a chain diet of Oxycontin and Vicodin, what ever you want do do with you is fine. Promoting those things to others is what I take issue with.
A published article claiming a "need" for LSD to be successful and glorification and claim of normalcy with it's use without any argument is the problem.
Claiming that certain drugs are okay because they "may" be Spiritual would be like saying loads of other extremely dangerous experiences are okay because they "may" be "Spiritual". Suicide and revival come immediately to mind, especially considering both the long and short term effect of many drugs including LSD. As to not be purely biased, just go look at the laundry list of things people claim were spiritual for them. "Spiritual" is a positive word, not derogatory or neutral. Hence, my claim that you are glorifying drugs is correct, or fine.. more explicitly LSD.
Once again, I'm fine with what ever you want to put into your body. I'm not fine with claims that these things are "Spiritual" (Positive) because it's simply false. Negative effects of drugs (including LSD) are well documented, and in younger adults and teens may cause irreversible damage.
Nobody said anything like that. Obvious strawman is obvious.
It's not a straw man, it's called snark. You could claim it's reductio ad absurdem, or perhaps a continuum fallacy (maybe), but it would be more proper to claim it's a slippery slope because it is just 1 step away from you claiming LSD is "Spiritual" and ignoring the obvious societal implications from such a claim. Perhaps you can read up on the definition and meaning of "Spiritual" while brushing up on basic logic.
Disclaimer: I haven't dropped acid in over 15 years.
And you are proud of advertising that? Drugs are "Spiritual"? Sorry, but you are doing the same thing as TFA. Glorifying drugs!
I don't care what you do, but I do care that people who are young and impressionable believe that type of nonsense. If you are one of the extremely rare who remains a "normal" productive citizen while on drugs good for you. Most aren't.
Will you next claim how I'm just a prude for being against drunk driving? Joe is pretty sure he's more productive with a buzz on, and has to get to and from work while lit up a bit. Good grief.
I find it appalling that people are trying to promote these types of elicit drugs. If you need them, you are doing something wrong somewhere. If you are claiming they are "okay" or "needed" for "work", you are a disgusting person.
Posting anonymously is required if you have certain opinions which people see as "wrong think". Some easy examples: Arguing against UBI. Arguing against Global Warming (now called Climate Change). Arguing against pot legalization. Arguing for a creator in Philosophy (not related to theology). Arguing for most of the amendments in the US Constitution (though pro 4th is still safe). Arguing for certain political parties, platforms, and candidates, or against their opposition.
When accounts related to special interests stop getting mod points I will agree with you. The former won't happen, so I'm not worried about the latter.
A big part of/. moderation is not the moderation system itself, but the abuse of the system by (let us call them) special interests. Long ago it was people with sock puppet accounts mostly using them to moderate their own posts. Those still exist today, but we also have groups punishing "wrong think" and up modding garbage. E.G. "Trump is a F*# wad!" gets modded informative, "Trump's policy on X may actually be good because.. reasoning" gets modded "Troll", and "Why is Trump's policy?" questions get modded Flamebait.
Slashdot has never done a good job with this. I don't know if they can ban certain accounts from getting mod points, but the fact that obvious moderation problems are consistently ignored has caused many to leave the site (see Soylent News). Most of us post anonymously when we know it's a censorship issue, which will eventually cause us to leave also.
Public drivers always need controls, because the public is not some altruistic group always doing the right thing. The lack of control mixed with the shit moderation by sock puppet and special interest accounts has driven the dialogue and discussion portion of Slashdot down to kindergarten level on most topics.
Awesome moderation/.! A fact WITH A CITATION is now moderated a "troll"! More facts below this post which contain FACTS are also moderated "off topic" and down modded. Way to go!
re-read your post, apology for skimming. My other post is true, but not really relevant to yours. Your claim is quite false in a broad sense, but like all good conspiracy theories contains a grain of truth. It's way too complex if an issue for such a gross over simplification. Most native Americans were nomadic imperialists themselves long before anyone else arrived, and tribe wars are extremely common. There were a few tribes who were less nomadic and less tied to war, but they were the targets of other tribes who wanted their stuff. Native Americans believed in survival of the fittest. Like you, I could grossly over simply and claim that conquering them honored their beliefs. Like your statement, I would be making a false statement and grossly over simplifying the history.
The issue is that it's a matter of historical perspective. Most people in the US are illegal aliens from the point of view of native Americans who got there first.
Absolute Rubbish! Instead of believing every damn thing you get told by a politician, try cracking a book. They contain historical facts, not hyperbole to fit an agenda.
Most people who immigrated came through Ellis Island. They needed to prove that they could support themselves and do so legally, they needed to pass health inspection, and so did their family. They had to be educated in English to at least a degree. There _WAS_NO_WELFARE_ so if a person could not support themselves they went back home anyway! Entering the country illegally at the time was not as big of a concern, because there were no State/Federal benefits handed out to people for any reason..
Welfare systems were supposed to come with immigration reform to prevent someone from entering the country and taking money from productive citizens tax pool and citizens already in need. Politicians knew they had a guaranteed voting block if they allowed welfare to go to new immigrants, and it didn't take long for them to do so. Which is exactly why immigration has been a hot political issue since I was a kid. (See Milton Friedman from the late 60s onward).
An illegal alien is someone who enters the country illegally. Stop making up stories to make criminal acts appear non criminal because it fits a political agenda. By your logic, I can break into your house and it's not a crime unless I broke in before.
The people responsible for such sites should be held accountable for gross negligence.
You mean a lackey or two right? No executives are held accountable for their own decisions. In fact, the bigger the screw up the more jumps applied to the Peter Principle.
Also, it seems like it should be a basic civil right at this point to be allowed to change one's SSN. To be forced to deal for the rest of one's lifetime with the consequences of it having been stolen is outrageous.
I'm not sure you know what a civil right is. I would however support legislation which outlaws the use of one's SSN as identification to anyone other than the Government, and perhaps even more specifically the Social Security Agency.
I see people say that, and then try to talk to them to see what they know. They tend to have a great grasp of memes and basic fallacies like ad hominem and appeals to emotion, but no facts. "News" is supposed to provide you facts so that you can form an opinion. We seem to have lost that very special distinction over a pretty short time.
Just to one up your use of social media for news, I had a guy tell me all kinds of crazy stuff a particular politician said in a speech. I went and listened, it took all of 10 minutes, and said "none of that crazy stuff was in the speech." I then asked "did you listen to it?" Answer: No, I read about it on Buzzfeed, Vox, Huffpo, and watched a CNN clip and MSNBC clip on it. This person spent 2 hours gathering other people's opinions without ever hearing the actual words or reading a transcript. When I asked them to watch the speech and perhaps we can talk about the content, I was met with a firm refusal to do so.
GGP is correct, 95% of all people are stupid and refuse to do anything about it.
I for one am glad to know that creimer can troll anonymously just as well as when logged in. And WTF is a mod point? I have not seen mod points in a year. Distribution broke during the last ownership change...
In other words, you got nothing. Trump has not pandered to white supremacists, that is a flat out fabrication. Just like "Russian Collusion". You can't tell fact from fiction, which is very telling. Your last part is a hilarious attempt at re-framing history. No basis in fact!
Slashdot Mirror
You have no basis for comparison.
You know of all my personal experiences and knowledge how exactly? Simple answer: You don't. Your claim of intellectual high ground is based on an appeal to a non-existent authority.
Contrary to how they are often depicted, drugs are typically pretty boring.
Your assumption seems to be that the only reason people do drugs is for entertainment. Which is a complete bullshit argument with little basis in reality. People use drugs for reasons like depression from any number of causes, wanting to fit in to any number of circumstances, and from peer pressure (resulting from statements like TFA claims where "everyone is doing it but nobody admits it", and "you are a better person when using LSD"
LSD is not necessarily much more inebriating than alcohol, and you're pretty unlikely to get any open-eye visual hallucinations. There are other drugs that are better for that, but LSD is really just a cheap feeling of enlightenment.
Comparing LSD to alcohol ignores the effects of both drugs on a human. LSD has been known to cause suicides, persistent psychological problems like paranoia and neurotic behavior, and since the body has a hard time processing LSD out of the system echos are a big problem. But hey, you are the person who claimed the intellectual high ground, why don't you bring any of those up?
That's not what confirmation bias is, as well. I understand that much of your worldview is predicated on your inability to distinguish logical fallacies from empirical fallacies, but you're really being aggressively stupid today.
The person who refuses to even acknowledge well documented science regarding the impact of drugs in general, in addition to the drug in question, and citing personal anecdotes which agree with their opinion is _EXACTLY_ what confirmation bias is. My world view is based on facts, which you are simply ignoring. Why not perform a basic web search for "negative effects of LSD" as a start.
More importantly, tell me how glorifying and normalizing the drugs is _not_ harmful for society? We know that it is, and cigarettes and alcohol are two very easy examples. That was my position and point from the start, which you simply ignore repeatedly. You doing drugs is not the same thing as you publishing an article noting 0 negative effects from LSD, claiming "everyone does it", and claiming "you need it to be successful". That type of article targets the weakest in society and pushes them toward usage. It's not neutral in any way shape or form.
Tommy John surgery used to be for injuries to pitchers. It has been glorified and normalized so that many very young kids are getting the surgery, often causing long term permanent injury and disability. You don't see a problem with popular web pages posting articles with claims "Tommy Johns surgery makes you a better pitcher, and everyone is doing it"? You really don't believe that this impacts young athletes? Parents even thinking they need to push their young adult/teen just a bit further and promote the surgery?
The damages from drugs are often similar to bad surgery, with permanent life long impact. Not every time, and not every case, but a measurable enough percentage where we have made the drug illegal.
The claims in TFA are roughly that "you need it to be better", and "everyone is doing it but nobody is admitting it". Those two statements can be said to be both glorifying and normalizing the drug, which impacts the most susceptible.
Again, my argument isn't that you can't experiment or do the drugs yourself. My argument is that it should not be glorified.
Sorry, but if you have no clue about drugs then stay out of the discussion.
Ahh, the old appeal to the non existent authority. Bravo sir, you have demonstrated that you simply don't want to have a debate or have your beliefs challenged. Well, too bad for you, you gave more to argue.
Most drugs are "ok".
Society/laws that outlaw them makes them not ok, blah blah blah I know what "pure" is better than you blah
You really can't see the obvious conflict between those two statements? Most drugs are not okay which is why they are illegal. If you need a historical reference, try "Opium" and "Opium Dens"
Most drugs _ARE_ addictive. The difference happens to be primarily between whether they are physically addictive or psychologically addictive. The latter is generally much harder to treat. No personal anecdotes needed to back facts, go study the actual science. Your confirmation bias based on people you know who did harder drugs than you included.
I don't drink soda, don't drink caffeine boosted (energy drinks), don't drink alcohol, don't eat or drink much sugar. When I have sugar, it's generally natural in fruits. Amazingly I know and work with plenty of people who are similar.
Fairy tales are amusing, and your amusement comes from telling one to yourself.
It is quite a leap to go from caffeine to LSD, or claim that LSD is fine because you drink a glass of wine on occasion. You may want to think over that bit of logic.
Confirmation bias. You should broaden your perspective.
Why not use the ACTUAL definition of the word instead of a synonym which seems to be an attempt to discount my position? Because the actual definition backs my position?
Spiritual
1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal spiritual needs
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters spiritual songs
b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal spiritual authority lords spiritual
3: concerned with religious values
4: related or joined in spirit our spiritual home his spiritual heir
5a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic
So you skip the argument about the "PROMOTION OF DRUGS" and nitpick a spelling error. Rational discussion at it's finest.
Amazing that you don't even bother to argue against my original point, but toss around insults. Can we have this company email your kids and/or grandkids articles talking about how "all the successful people are using LSD" and how the experience is purely "Spiritual"? You don't think that would have an impact on them and their growth if they were teens/young adults? You can't be that naive.
Oh don't worry, I'm not for the legal prescripts in many cases either. Doctors hand out so many types of synthetic codeine that a whole new drug market popped up for treating side effects of synthetic codeine.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also very sympathetic to people with pain. I have been on the operating table numerous times, and have chronic pain from injuries. Teaching people to get off pain medication is lost to most people in medicine, because they can be sued for not handing out more and more drugs.
I'm fine with people abusing themselves, and am purely libertarian in that regard. Drink as much as you want, Smoke dope, shoot heroin, drop acid/LSD, eat peyote, live on a chain diet of Oxycontin and Vicodin, what ever you want do do with you is fine. Promoting those things to others is what I take issue with.
A published article claiming a "need" for LSD to be successful and glorification and claim of normalcy with it's use without any argument is the problem.
Claiming that certain drugs are okay because they "may" be Spiritual would be like saying loads of other extremely dangerous experiences are okay because they "may" be "Spiritual". Suicide and revival come immediately to mind, especially considering both the long and short term effect of many drugs including LSD. As to not be purely biased, just go look at the laundry list of things people claim were spiritual for them. "Spiritual" is a positive word, not derogatory or neutral. Hence, my claim that you are glorifying drugs is correct, or fine.. more explicitly LSD.
Once again, I'm fine with what ever you want to put into your body. I'm not fine with claims that these things are "Spiritual" (Positive) because it's simply false. Negative effects of drugs (including LSD) are well documented, and in younger adults and teens may cause irreversible damage.
Nobody said anything like that. Obvious strawman is obvious.
It's not a straw man, it's called snark. You could claim it's reductio ad absurdem, or perhaps a continuum fallacy (maybe), but it would be more proper to claim it's a slippery slope because it is just 1 step away from you claiming LSD is "Spiritual" and ignoring the obvious societal implications from such a claim. Perhaps you can read up on the definition and meaning of "Spiritual" while brushing up on basic logic.
Disclaimer: I haven't dropped acid in over 15 years.
And you are proud of advertising that? Drugs are "Spiritual"? Sorry, but you are doing the same thing as TFA. Glorifying drugs!
I don't care what you do, but I do care that people who are young and impressionable believe that type of nonsense. If you are one of the extremely rare who remains a "normal" productive citizen while on drugs good for you. Most aren't.
Will you next claim how I'm just a prude for being against drunk driving? Joe is pretty sure he's more productive with a buzz on, and has to get to and from work while lit up a bit. Good grief.
I find it appalling that people are trying to promote these types of elicit drugs. If you need them, you are doing something wrong somewhere. If you are claiming they are "okay" or "needed" for "work", you are a disgusting person.
Posting anonymously is required if you have certain opinions which people see as "wrong think". Some easy examples: Arguing against UBI. Arguing against Global Warming (now called Climate Change). Arguing against pot legalization. Arguing for a creator in Philosophy (not related to theology). Arguing for most of the amendments in the US Constitution (though pro 4th is still safe). Arguing for certain political parties, platforms, and candidates, or against their opposition.
When accounts related to special interests stop getting mod points I will agree with you. The former won't happen, so I'm not worried about the latter.
A big part of /. moderation is not the moderation system itself, but the abuse of the system by (let us call them) special interests. Long ago it was people with sock puppet accounts mostly using them to moderate their own posts. Those still exist today, but we also have groups punishing "wrong think" and up modding garbage. E.G. "Trump is a F*# wad!" gets modded informative, "Trump's policy on X may actually be good because.. reasoning" gets modded "Troll", and "Why is Trump's policy?" questions get modded Flamebait.
Slashdot has never done a good job with this. I don't know if they can ban certain accounts from getting mod points, but the fact that obvious moderation problems are consistently ignored has caused many to leave the site (see Soylent News). Most of us post anonymously when we know it's a censorship issue, which will eventually cause us to leave also.
Public drivers always need controls, because the public is not some altruistic group always doing the right thing. The lack of control mixed with the shit moderation by sock puppet and special interest accounts has driven the dialogue and discussion portion of Slashdot down to kindergarten level on most topics.
Awesome moderation /.! A fact WITH A CITATION is now moderated a "troll"! More facts below this post which contain FACTS are also moderated "off topic" and down modded. Way to go!
What can't you do without Unicode?
Operate Slashdot!
re-read your post, apology for skimming. My other post is true, but not really relevant to yours. Your claim is quite false in a broad sense, but like all good conspiracy theories contains a grain of truth. It's way too complex if an issue for such a gross over simplification. Most native Americans were nomadic imperialists themselves long before anyone else arrived, and tribe wars are extremely common. There were a few tribes who were less nomadic and less tied to war, but they were the targets of other tribes who wanted their stuff. Native Americans believed in survival of the fittest. Like you, I could grossly over simply and claim that conquering them honored their beliefs. Like your statement, I would be making a false statement and grossly over simplifying the history.
The issue is that it's a matter of historical perspective. Most people in the US are illegal aliens from the point of view of native Americans who got there first.
Absolute Rubbish! Instead of believing every damn thing you get told by a politician, try cracking a book. They contain historical facts, not hyperbole to fit an agenda.
Most people who immigrated came through Ellis Island. They needed to prove that they could support themselves and do so legally, they needed to pass health inspection, and so did their family. They had to be educated in English to at least a degree. There _WAS_NO_WELFARE_ so if a person could not support themselves they went back home anyway! Entering the country illegally at the time was not as big of a concern, because there were no State/Federal benefits handed out to people for any reason..
Welfare systems were supposed to come with immigration reform to prevent someone from entering the country and taking money from productive citizens tax pool and citizens already in need. Politicians knew they had a guaranteed voting block if they allowed welfare to go to new immigrants, and it didn't take long for them to do so. Which is exactly why immigration has been a hot political issue since I was a kid. (See Milton Friedman from the late 60s onward).
An illegal alien is someone who enters the country illegally. Stop making up stories to make criminal acts appear non criminal because it fits a political agenda. By your logic, I can break into your house and it's not a crime unless I broke in before.
On planet Earth.
The people responsible for such sites should be held accountable for gross negligence.
You mean a lackey or two right? No executives are held accountable for their own decisions. In fact, the bigger the screw up the more jumps applied to the Peter Principle.
Also, it seems like it should be a basic civil right at this point to be allowed to change one's SSN. To be forced to deal for the rest of one's lifetime with the consequences of it having been stolen is outrageous.
I'm not sure you know what a civil right is. I would however support legislation which outlaws the use of one's SSN as identification to anyone other than the Government, and perhaps even more specifically the Social Security Agency.
No executives will be fired for this incident.
I see people say that, and then try to talk to them to see what they know. They tend to have a great grasp of memes and basic fallacies like ad hominem and appeals to emotion, but no facts. "News" is supposed to provide you facts so that you can form an opinion. We seem to have lost that very special distinction over a pretty short time.
Just to one up your use of social media for news, I had a guy tell me all kinds of crazy stuff a particular politician said in a speech. I went and listened, it took all of 10 minutes, and said "none of that crazy stuff was in the speech." I then asked "did you listen to it?" Answer: No, I read about it on Buzzfeed, Vox, Huffpo, and watched a CNN clip and MSNBC clip on it. This person spent 2 hours gathering other people's opinions without ever hearing the actual words or reading a transcript. When I asked them to watch the speech and perhaps we can talk about the content, I was met with a firm refusal to do so.
GGP is correct, 95% of all people are stupid and refuse to do anything about it.
I for one am glad to know that creimer can troll anonymously just as well as when logged in. And WTF is a mod point? I have not seen mod points in a year. Distribution broke during the last ownership change...
In other words, you got nothing. Trump has not pandered to white supremacists, that is a flat out fabrication. Just like "Russian Collusion". You can't tell fact from fiction, which is very telling. Your last part is a hilarious attempt at re-framing history. No basis in fact!
Leviticus isn't a commandment you ignorant fool! Do some actual research instead of repeating propaganda and bullshit!