Rick Strassman isn't some drug fanatic, he's a lead researcher in the field of psychedelic drugs. And I linked to that webpage because it contained some pertinant excerpts from one of his papers.
Aso, I wasn't "comparing" taking LSD to winning the Nobel prize. I was citing specific instances where Nobel prize winners who've used LSD have actually said that part of their inspiration came from their use of the drug.
And it'd still be nice if you could cite atleast one particular study that supports your claims that LSD causes psychosis.
This has nothing to do with relying on Google to do this or that. These protestors are simply trying to influence Google's policies in China that are a major blow to their movement--what is wrong or dangerous about that? Frankly, it's a very strategic move for dissidents in their situation.
U.S. laws have little to nothing to do with Tibetan liberation, and though we could pass a law in the U.S. that might force Google to change their policies, that isn't something that the Tibetan liberation movement is likely to pull off on their own. However, their protests of Google may motivate certain U.S. citizens to take up such a cause. I think you need to look a little harder at the situation before you dismiss their actions.
Yea, and most people are shallow, politicians are corrupt, business people are greedy, and AIDS kills people. What's your point?
Corporate responsibility may not be a natural priority in the business world, but that doesn't mean that businesses shouldn't or can't be held accountable for what they do. Sure, if everyone's as complacent as you then we're probably all fucked, but clearly that's not the reality of things.
Yes, it actually takes work to make the world a better place...
By choosing not to do business with China than to carry out their censorship policies, Google would be sending a strong message not only to the Chinese government, the Chinese people, but also to the rest of the world. Part of the point of protest is to rally support for your movement. Perhaps being oppressors you have little power to effect reforms, but by drawing attention to the issue through protest and eliciting outside support, you may eventually stand a chance to fight back.
The civil rights movement could not have succeeded without the support of whites, of politicians, and other powerful figures in American society. Likewise, the Tibetan liberation movement is unlikely to succeed without the support of people outside of the Tibetan community.
I mean, do you think the Berlin wall would have fallen if there hadn't been international pressure on the Soviet government? Believe it or not, Google, being the gatekeeper of information in many ways, does have an influence on the political life of not just people in the U.S., but those in all countries where Google operates.
First off, it's spelled "ridiculous." Secondly, Google is carrying out the Chinese government's censorship policies. And seeing as how Google is one of the most popular search engines in the world, their compliance with the Chinese government's suppression of dissent has a tremendous impact on those movements.
Considering the position of the Tibetan liberation movement, the best way for them to protest their oppressors would be to voice their dissent. They do not have any military, economic, or direct political power, so how else would they go about fighting the oppression they are under?
Why do you think China puts so much effort into censoring their political opponents? Without the ability to voice their dissent, to be heard, there is no way to organize a resistance; there is no way to draw attention to the issue and build support. And as long as the Chinese people remain ignorant of these problems, there can be no reforms.
Google being an Amercan company doesn't change the fact that they are abetting an oppressive government, just like Nike being an American company doesn't excuse their use of sweatshops--which may be standard practice and perfectly legal in the countries where the sweatshops are run. Also, seeing as the Chinese government is known to be a communist dictatorship and Google isn't, it would seem to me that it'd be easier to convince Google to lift their censorship policies than it would be to convince the Chinese government to do so. And only once the dissenters are able to actually be heard will their protests of the Chinese government have any effect. The point of protesting, afterall, is to be heard and to draw attention to the issue, so there's really no point if no one knows that you're protesting.
You should really put a little more thought into what people's motives might be and atleast try to understand the situation a little better before you go off calling people's methods of protest "ridiculous." I mean, it should have be pretty obvious why Google's censorship is a devastating blow to their movement.
Oh, and I made no mention of anyone going crazy from taking acid, so I don't know where you got "3 LSD crazies" from. Two of the three individuals I mentioned merely acted stranger than normal on a few occassions while they were under the influence of some mind-altering substance--in the first case it was alcohol & pot, and in the second case it was mushrooms. The third individual who has a history of mental illness in his family does indeed behave oddly after he took mushrooms, but I think calling all 3 of them crazy would be a bit of a hyperbole. None of them have ever taken acid so the label "LSD crazies," besides sounding like a phrase out of Reefer Madness or some other 30's prohibitionist propaganda film, is outright false.
Oh really, Mr. Doctor Scientist, thanks for your superior scientific analysis. Where did you get your degree again, the school of "I used drugs."? And what's your clinical experience, Drug use and your brother? What controls did you use, yourself? Has anyone examined you for your strange psychotic novelty-seeking obsession with drugs, or did you just diagnose yourself as normal?
I never claimed to be a doctor or scientist. I was merely presenting anecdotal evidence based on my own experiences and personal observations. I also don't claim to be normal--a very vague and loaded word. Terms such as "normal" and "sane" are pretty subjective. If you want to define them as being in the median range of the psychological or neurological profiles in a given society, you will likely find significant deviations from one culture to another, and probably even from region to region within the U.S. That said, most people who know me would probably agree that I'm pretty eccentric--I won't deny that. However, before you make any judgements about my mental health, it would probably be useful to have a little more background info about me.
I'm a 20-year-old Asian male. I've been fascinated with computers for as long as I can remember. I started programming in QBASIC when I was in 4th or 5th grade, later moving on to Visual Basic. In middle school, my programming interests shifted towards the internet and world wide web. I began building webpages, teaching myself HTML and Javascript, and also started coding in Perl. As my focus turned towards web development in high school, I switched over to PHP and MySQL.
Since then I've held various web-development-related jobs. I was employed as a webmaster for a short stint by a RAID-enclosure manufacturer when I was 16. They later laid me off and gave the job to a college grad--I don't really blame them; I was 16. After I graduated from high school, I began working for an independent metal label as a graphic designer and web developer. I've been working there on and off for the last two and a half years. While I attended UIUC, I also worked as a web developer for a media production company on campus in addition to being a web developer and database admin for the chem department. I've also done some freelance work on the side throughout the past 4 years.
In high school, I was an honors/AP student, albeit an unmotivated one with fairly mediocre grades. For example, I took AP Calculus and AP Physics my junior year, and though I scored 5's on both AP Calculus AB and BC, as well as AP Physics B (they didn't offer AP Physics C at my school), I received 'C's in both my calc and physics class. But, while I wasn't a model student academically, I did participate in a lot of extracurriculars. Notably, I was very involved with Key Club, a service organization, and I also served as president of our school's chapter of Junior Statesment of America--a debate club of sorts. I was also the president of our school's web design club, participated in Academic Decathlon, and also tutored other students after-school 2-3 days a week. I also joined various student organizations when I was attending UIUC. I joined Circle K (college version of Key Club) there, and was also a member of Student Peace Action, and Students Improving the Lives of Animals.
Outside of school I've also enjoyed working with Food Not Bombs, a non-profit organization which distributes food to the homeless, Tech Corps of Southern California, a non-profit service organization for IT professionals, and I also try to be active in the community in other ways. In addition to these things, I also read a lot (particularly works related to philosophy and sociology, but also fiction novels & poetry), I enjoy writing (poetry as well as prose), I play guitar, I snowboard, I paintball, I draw, and I occassionally even paint. What I don't do much is watch TV, or play videogames.
So, while I don't consider myself "normal," I do think that I'm a fairly well-rounded person in that I try t
So Toxoplasma triggers the production of LSD in the host organism's brain, and this is believed to be a major cause of schizophrenia in humans? Are there any other sources that support this claim? LSD is somewhat difficult to test for in humans, and even then the link between schizophrenia and LSD is a rather contentious subject in the medical community. The article itself also seems to question the verity of this hypothesis:
"A word of caution: our authors' impressive theoretical edifice is built on some pretty thin evidence. It's simplistic to say T. gondii works by triggering the production of LSD--among other problems with the idea, acid mainly gives rise to visual hallucinations, whereas the delusions of schizophrenics are primarily auditory (e.g., hearing voices)."
As you can probably guess, I am a big fan of acid and psychedelics in general. I've taken many psychedelic drugs, including but not limited to: Cannabis, LSD, Psilocybin Mushrooms, Mescaline, MDMA, AMT, 2C-E, 2C-I, 2C-B, 2C-T-7, 5MeO-AMT, 5MeO-DiPT, Ketamine, DXM, LSA, Salvia, and many others. I've taken traditional psychedelics (Tryptamines and Phenethylamines such as LSD, Psilocybin, Mescaline, MDMA, 2C-*, 5MeO-*, etc.), dissociatives (PCP, DXM, Ketamine, Nitrous, Salvia, etc.), and even deliriants (Dramamine, Datura, Amanita Muscaria, Bella Donna, etc.) on occasion, so I'm pretty well-versed in the various categories of psychedelic drugs and their effects.
Out of the 3 main categories of psychedelic drugs, I would say that the most dangerous is probably the deliriants, typically anticholinergenic deliriants. Strong dissociatives such as PCP may induce prolonged psychotic states, possibly even causing long-term brain-damage with chronic exposure, but they are unlikely to cause full-blown hallucinations as with anticholinergenic drugs. Conventional psychedelics such as LSD, pot, Mushrooms, Mescaline, etc. are even less likely to induce psychotic/delusional episodes compared to strong dissociatives like PCP. Typically, people on traditional psychedelics such as acid may see OEVs(opened eye visuals) or CEVs(closed eye visuals) but they are not hallucinations in the strict sense. They are more accurately described as perceptual illusions, such as moving patterns, altered spatial perception, synesthesia, etc. Only deleriants cause full-blown hallucinations that one can't distinguish from reality. This is why there is a very high incidence of "bad trips" on deliriants, many of which resulting in ER visits or stays in the psychiatric ward.
While I don't doubt that a bad trip on acid can be the springboard for schizophrenia, these are usually cases where the individual is already predisposed towards mental illness, and the acid simply triggers it by inducing a traumatic experience. Most people, however, walk away from their bad trips relatively unscathed. Some naive users may continue to be haunted afterwards by embarassing things they did while they were tripping, but few suffer any long-term psychological effects from their bad trips.
I have simply known too many people who have done acid or similar hallucinogens and have never exhibited any psychotic behavior to believe that LSD can cause schizophrenia. In fact, I don't think that LSD plays much of a role in the etiology of schizophrenia or any other mental illness. It's more likely that most people who develop schizophrenia after taking LSD would have still developed the mental disorder eventually even if they hadn't taken any drugs.
I've only met 3 individuals whom I've witnessed really bizarre behavior from after they took psychedelic drugs. One appeared to experience acute psychotic episodes after smoking pot or drinking alcohol, but this seemed to be due to his being socially maladjusted more than anything. The second individual behaved very strangely after consuming mushrooms on 2 different occassions, but otherwise he was perfectly normal even when he smoked weed or
Crybabies? Quieter? Who exactly are you trying to criticize? Medical researchers? Sick people? Charities that try to raise money for medical research or otherwise help the less fortunate?
My mom happens to be a devout buddhist and is part of a local buddhist group that focuses on environmentalism, charity, etc. Wanting to alleviate suffering has nothing to do with believing that some malevolent force is behind it. It may be convenient to believe that the suffering of others is part of some great plan that "god" has for us, but that kind of thinking only leads to apathy and impedes progress.
Please quit it with your orientalist bullshit. Don't drag philosophies that you haven't actually studied into your arguments.
"Do not presume that if humans do not know the reason behind the suffering that there is no reason. That suffering is somehow always evil and to be avoided."
Remember you said that when you're diagnosed with bowel cancer, or your wife is raped, or when some other similar tragedy strikes in your life.
I have the option to turn safe-search off. Also, there are different types of censorship. You can just as easily argue that laws against letting minors purchase pornography or watch R-rated movies unaccompanied by an adult are forms of censorship. But this type of censorship is more benign. I think it's pointless to try to shield your children from pornography, but parents certainly have that right, the government (if by the people) can reasonably act upon that right however futile it might be, and also companies producing what's considered "adult material" have the social responsibility to show some consideration for individuals who don't want to be exposed to it. Now, our society has also come to agree on general principles on how to regulate "adult material" even if the term is vaguely defined(but there is a persistent public discourse about the issue, and there are opportunities for legal recourse whenever a party on a particular side of the issue feels the system is unfair). So our laws that prohibit the distribution of "adult material" to minors is a sort of social agreement between various segments of our society.
Google's safe-search is also simply facilitating that social agreement by upholding its general principles. It's being considerate to the cultural attitude of our society in regards to the issue. The issue with the PRC government's censorship system is quite different. There is no public discourse, it is not a social agreement, it's simply a form of political control/passive coercion. It the chinese people had the opportunity to turn it off, to have legal recourse against the system, then it would be different.
Most public health issues in 3rd-world nations aren't a result of a lack of education. People in Africa who don't have access to safe drinking water are not defecating near their wells. Harsh living conditions in these areas arise from not having developed public infrastructure which includes sewage/sanitation systems, water processing plants/irrigation systems/plumbing systems, as well as an education system. But these problems all arise from social unrest. Thinking that Africans need people to tell them not to crap in their water is a pretty condescending attitude to take. You might as well tell some ethiopian kid that he should wash his hands before he picks half-rotten food out of the garbage to eat. It's not that these people lack the common sense abilities that individuals in developed countries possess. It's just that individuals in developing countries often have more on their minds--like not getting hacked up with machetes or raped by militant groups.
A real dog is a complex biological system with biochemical mechanisms in its brain programmed to reflect emotions such as happiness and sadness when certain biochemical processes are triggered indirectly through outside stimulus.
A robot dog is a system of mechanical parts running an electronic logic system designed to reflect emotions such as happiness and sadness when certain internal program processes are triggered through outside stimulus.
Reverse racism is indeed still racism. You're describing one of the differences between our society's reactions to the two different forms of racism. The term wasn't created to justify reverse racism, only to identify the difference in how particular forms of racism affects our society. No one is trying to say that a black racist is any better than a white racist, but there are fundamental differences due to the cultural context that are important to those who are studying the sociological effects of racism/prejudice.
Also, in the subculture of an all black community in the U.S., black males would probably be the dominant social group even though in the larger cultural context of the entire nation they are still a subordinate group. So in the case of you (I'm assuming you're non-black) making a racist remark against blacks in an all-black community, that could be an instance of reverse racism. Morally, it's no less reprehensible, but the cultural reaction and consequences of you making such a remark in an all-black neighborhood would be different than if you had done the same in a social environment dominated by whites.
Most sociologists and psychologists don't treat reverse racism as any better than racism by the dominant social group. Also, technically, the dominant social group does not have to be the majority. It's whichever social group which has the most privilege/power/cultural influence over a given society. So while whites in South Africa might have been a minority during Apartheid, they were still the dominant social group. It's understandable why the term can be confusing, but it makes sense in the sociological context it's usually used in. Ofcourse, part of the phenomenon of reverse racism is that in most societies it is more tolerated than racism committed by the dominant social group--but this has less to do with the terminology than the social context in which this form of racism occurs.
Well, then it shouldn't be applied to cultural studies. And by definition, the dominant social group in any society does experience certain privileges. Reverse racism is only an unhelpful term if you don't understand what it means. It's still racism, and is no more justifiable than racism against less privileged social groups, but the distinction has to be made since this form of racism often manifests itself in different ways and is treated by society differently.
There is a useful distinction if you're studying sociology or psychology. Reverse racism occurs when there are racist actions taken against the dominant social group. This has different implications and consequences than when a minority social group is the target of racism.
You can also steal things from any store, by walking out without paying for it, as long as no one catches you. My friends do it all the time. A self-checkout machine doesn't really make much of a difference. But try walking out of a supermarket with a ham and a leg of lamb stuffed in your pants.
Tissue cultures grow just as other simple organisms do. They also have their own system of metabolism to convert the liquid nutrients into energy. They exhibit internal motion just as other simple cellular life forms. They reproduce through mitosis. They respond to stimuli in different ways depending on the type of tissue it is. They are composed of cells. So how does this not fit the definition of a life form. It may not be a lifeform that naturally occurs outside of the human body, but a tissue culture exhibits all the qualities of life.
I think you might want to just revise your definition of what is a human being.
Which properties of life do the other types of cells in the human body not exhibit? A culture of almost any type of cell in the human body will continue to grow and exhibt all properties of life when placed in liquid nutrients.
You're claim that embryos are human beings is not based on philosophical arguments. They are based on arbitrary beliefs (which are most likely religiously inspired). The only thing you've supported your claim with is a dubious definition of what a human being is, paying no attention to the biological distinction between various stages of human reproduction.
Let me ask you one last question. Do you have children or plan on having children with your wife? If you already have kids, did you ever mourn for the other 2-3 embryos that likely died before each child was born? If you are planning on having children in the future, are you going to grieve for the 2-3 embryos that will likely be killed before your first child was born? Will you tell your children about their siblings that didn't make it? Keep in mind that most spontaneous abortions happen so early in the pregnancy that most couples don't even realize that there was conception.
I'm working on a game where you play a teenage runnaway who has to learn how to survive in the streets.
The game starts you off at a truck stop in the midwest where you have to perform sexual favors for truck drivers for meth and cash. As you progress, you learn more sexual techniques and get more and more hooked on meth.
After you reach a certain level, you'll be spotted by a guy named Donkey King, who pays you very little and pimps you out on the streets as the two of you travel to the westcoast together.
The money you earn from turning tricks can either go into clothes, your hair, plastic surgery, or more drugs. The drugs will let you turn more tricks per day, but they'll hurt your health and increase your chances of catching an STD.
Then maybe somewhere in the middle you'll be offered mini-missions like modeling for an adult magazine, a gig at a bachelor party, a role in a porno, or maybe even a donkey show.
Your life isn't unlimited though, and after a while you will be paid less and less until eventually you're doing midget porn/sheisa videos for $8/hr. It's up to you to check yourself into rehab, get a job at walmart, and get knocked up by your parole officer so that you may have kids to continue a new journey with.
This should give enough variations so that if you regret something you did in the previous life, you can play as your children to choose another direction (such as not doing that donkey show in TJ where you think you caught herpes from).
Slashdot Mirror
Rick Strassman isn't some drug fanatic, he's a lead researcher in the field of psychedelic drugs. And I linked to that webpage because it contained some pertinant excerpts from one of his papers.
Aso, I wasn't "comparing" taking LSD to winning the Nobel prize. I was citing specific instances where Nobel prize winners who've used LSD have actually said that part of their inspiration came from their use of the drug.
And it'd still be nice if you could cite atleast one particular study that supports your claims that LSD causes psychosis.
This has nothing to do with relying on Google to do this or that. These protestors are simply trying to influence Google's policies in China that are a major blow to their movement--what is wrong or dangerous about that? Frankly, it's a very strategic move for dissidents in their situation.
U.S. laws have little to nothing to do with Tibetan liberation, and though we could pass a law in the U.S. that might force Google to change their policies, that isn't something that the Tibetan liberation movement is likely to pull off on their own. However, their protests of Google may motivate certain U.S. citizens to take up such a cause. I think you need to look a little harder at the situation before you dismiss their actions.
Yea, and most people are shallow, politicians are corrupt, business people are greedy, and AIDS kills people. What's your point?
Corporate responsibility may not be a natural priority in the business world, but that doesn't mean that businesses shouldn't or can't be held accountable for what they do. Sure, if everyone's as complacent as you then we're probably all fucked, but clearly that's not the reality of things.
Yes, it actually takes work to make the world a better place...
By choosing not to do business with China than to carry out their censorship policies, Google would be sending a strong message not only to the Chinese government, the Chinese people, but also to the rest of the world. Part of the point of protest is to rally support for your movement. Perhaps being oppressors you have little power to effect reforms, but by drawing attention to the issue through protest and eliciting outside support, you may eventually stand a chance to fight back.
The civil rights movement could not have succeeded without the support of whites, of politicians, and other powerful figures in American society. Likewise, the Tibetan liberation movement is unlikely to succeed without the support of people outside of the Tibetan community.
I mean, do you think the Berlin wall would have fallen if there hadn't been international pressure on the Soviet government? Believe it or not, Google, being the gatekeeper of information in many ways, does have an influence on the political life of not just people in the U.S., but those in all countries where Google operates.
First off, it's spelled "ridiculous." Secondly, Google is carrying out the Chinese government's censorship policies. And seeing as how Google is one of the most popular search engines in the world, their compliance with the Chinese government's suppression of dissent has a tremendous impact on those movements.
Considering the position of the Tibetan liberation movement, the best way for them to protest their oppressors would be to voice their dissent. They do not have any military, economic, or direct political power, so how else would they go about fighting the oppression they are under?
Why do you think China puts so much effort into censoring their political opponents? Without the ability to voice their dissent, to be heard, there is no way to organize a resistance; there is no way to draw attention to the issue and build support. And as long as the Chinese people remain ignorant of these problems, there can be no reforms.
Google being an Amercan company doesn't change the fact that they are abetting an oppressive government, just like Nike being an American company doesn't excuse their use of sweatshops--which may be standard practice and perfectly legal in the countries where the sweatshops are run. Also, seeing as the Chinese government is known to be a communist dictatorship and Google isn't, it would seem to me that it'd be easier to convince Google to lift their censorship policies than it would be to convince the Chinese government to do so. And only once the dissenters are able to actually be heard will their protests of the Chinese government have any effect. The point of protesting, afterall, is to be heard and to draw attention to the issue, so there's really no point if no one knows that you're protesting.
You should really put a little more thought into what people's motives might be and atleast try to understand the situation a little better before you go off calling people's methods of protest "ridiculous." I mean, it should have be pretty obvious why Google's censorship is a devastating blow to their movement.
Oh, and I made no mention of anyone going crazy from taking acid, so I don't know where you got "3 LSD crazies" from. Two of the three individuals I mentioned merely acted stranger than normal on a few occassions while they were under the influence of some mind-altering substance--in the first case it was alcohol & pot, and in the second case it was mushrooms. The third individual who has a history of mental illness in his family does indeed behave oddly after he took mushrooms, but I think calling all 3 of them crazy would be a bit of a hyperbole. None of them have ever taken acid so the label "LSD crazies," besides sounding like a phrase out of Reefer Madness or some other 30's prohibitionist propaganda film, is outright false.
I never claimed to be a doctor or scientist. I was merely presenting anecdotal evidence based on my own experiences and personal observations. I also don't claim to be normal--a very vague and loaded word. Terms such as "normal" and "sane" are pretty subjective. If you want to define them as being in the median range of the psychological or neurological profiles in a given society, you will likely find significant deviations from one culture to another, and probably even from region to region within the U.S. That said, most people who know me would probably agree that I'm pretty eccentric--I won't deny that. However, before you make any judgements about my mental health, it would probably be useful to have a little more background info about me.
I'm a 20-year-old Asian male. I've been fascinated with computers for as long as I can remember. I started programming in QBASIC when I was in 4th or 5th grade, later moving on to Visual Basic. In middle school, my programming interests shifted towards the internet and world wide web. I began building webpages, teaching myself HTML and Javascript, and also started coding in Perl. As my focus turned towards web development in high school, I switched over to PHP and MySQL.
Since then I've held various web-development-related jobs. I was employed as a webmaster for a short stint by a RAID-enclosure manufacturer when I was 16. They later laid me off and gave the job to a college grad--I don't really blame them; I was 16. After I graduated from high school, I began working for an independent metal label as a graphic designer and web developer. I've been working there on and off for the last two and a half years. While I attended UIUC, I also worked as a web developer for a media production company on campus in addition to being a web developer and database admin for the chem department. I've also done some freelance work on the side throughout the past 4 years.
In high school, I was an honors/AP student, albeit an unmotivated one with fairly mediocre grades. For example, I took AP Calculus and AP Physics my junior year, and though I scored 5's on both AP Calculus AB and BC, as well as AP Physics B (they didn't offer AP Physics C at my school), I received 'C's in both my calc and physics class. But, while I wasn't a model student academically, I did participate in a lot of extracurriculars. Notably, I was very involved with Key Club, a service organization, and I also served as president of our school's chapter of Junior Statesment of America--a debate club of sorts. I was also the president of our school's web design club, participated in Academic Decathlon, and also tutored other students after-school 2-3 days a week. I also joined various student organizations when I was attending UIUC. I joined Circle K (college version of Key Club) there, and was also a member of Student Peace Action, and Students Improving the Lives of Animals.
Outside of school I've also enjoyed working with Food Not Bombs, a non-profit organization which distributes food to the homeless, Tech Corps of Southern California, a non-profit service organization for IT professionals, and I also try to be active in the community in other ways. In addition to these things, I also read a lot (particularly works related to philosophy and sociology, but also fiction novels & poetry), I enjoy writing (poetry as well as prose), I play guitar, I snowboard, I paintball, I draw, and I occassionally even paint. What I don't do much is watch TV, or play videogames.
So, while I don't consider myself "normal," I do think that I'm a fairly well-rounded person in that I try t
So Toxoplasma triggers the production of LSD in the host organism's brain, and this is believed to be a major cause of schizophrenia in humans? Are there any other sources that support this claim? LSD is somewhat difficult to test for in humans, and even then the link between schizophrenia and LSD is a rather contentious subject in the medical community. The article itself also seems to question the verity of this hypothesis:
"A word of caution: our authors' impressive theoretical edifice is built on some pretty thin evidence. It's simplistic to say T. gondii works by triggering the production of LSD--among other problems with the idea, acid mainly gives rise to visual hallucinations, whereas the delusions of schizophrenics are primarily auditory (e.g., hearing voices)."
As you can probably guess, I am a big fan of acid and psychedelics in general. I've taken many psychedelic drugs, including but not limited to: Cannabis, LSD, Psilocybin Mushrooms, Mescaline, MDMA, AMT, 2C-E, 2C-I, 2C-B, 2C-T-7, 5MeO-AMT, 5MeO-DiPT, Ketamine, DXM, LSA, Salvia, and many others. I've taken traditional psychedelics (Tryptamines and Phenethylamines such as LSD, Psilocybin, Mescaline, MDMA, 2C-*, 5MeO-*, etc.), dissociatives (PCP, DXM, Ketamine, Nitrous, Salvia, etc.), and even deliriants (Dramamine, Datura, Amanita Muscaria, Bella Donna, etc.) on occasion, so I'm pretty well-versed in the various categories of psychedelic drugs and their effects.
Out of the 3 main categories of psychedelic drugs, I would say that the most dangerous is probably the deliriants, typically anticholinergenic deliriants. Strong dissociatives such as PCP may induce prolonged psychotic states, possibly even causing long-term brain-damage with chronic exposure, but they are unlikely to cause full-blown hallucinations as with anticholinergenic drugs. Conventional psychedelics such as LSD, pot, Mushrooms, Mescaline, etc. are even less likely to induce psychotic/delusional episodes compared to strong dissociatives like PCP. Typically, people on traditional psychedelics such as acid may see OEVs(opened eye visuals) or CEVs(closed eye visuals) but they are not hallucinations in the strict sense. They are more accurately described as perceptual illusions, such as moving patterns, altered spatial perception, synesthesia, etc. Only deleriants cause full-blown hallucinations that one can't distinguish from reality. This is why there is a very high incidence of "bad trips" on deliriants, many of which resulting in ER visits or stays in the psychiatric ward.
While I don't doubt that a bad trip on acid can be the springboard for schizophrenia, these are usually cases where the individual is already predisposed towards mental illness, and the acid simply triggers it by inducing a traumatic experience. Most people, however, walk away from their bad trips relatively unscathed. Some naive users may continue to be haunted afterwards by embarassing things they did while they were tripping, but few suffer any long-term psychological effects from their bad trips.
I have simply known too many people who have done acid or similar hallucinogens and have never exhibited any psychotic behavior to believe that LSD can cause schizophrenia. In fact, I don't think that LSD plays much of a role in the etiology of schizophrenia or any other mental illness. It's more likely that most people who develop schizophrenia after taking LSD would have still developed the mental disorder eventually even if they hadn't taken any drugs.
I've only met 3 individuals whom I've witnessed really bizarre behavior from after they took psychedelic drugs. One appeared to experience acute psychotic episodes after smoking pot or drinking alcohol, but this seemed to be due to his being socially maladjusted more than anything. The second individual behaved very strangely after consuming mushrooms on 2 different occassions, but otherwise he was perfectly normal even when he smoked weed or
There's already a German punk band called Toxoplasma.
Crybabies? Quieter? Who exactly are you trying to criticize? Medical researchers? Sick people? Charities that try to raise money for medical research or otherwise help the less fortunate?
My mom happens to be a devout buddhist and is part of a local buddhist group that focuses on environmentalism, charity, etc. Wanting to alleviate suffering has nothing to do with believing that some malevolent force is behind it. It may be convenient to believe that the suffering of others is part of some great plan that "god" has for us, but that kind of thinking only leads to apathy and impedes progress.
Please quit it with your orientalist bullshit. Don't drag philosophies that you haven't actually studied into your arguments.
"Do not presume that if humans do not know the reason behind the suffering that there is no reason. That suffering is somehow always evil and to be avoided."
Remember you said that when you're diagnosed with bowel cancer, or your wife is raped, or when some other similar tragedy strikes in your life.
Perhaps a little off topic, but Wired has an interesting article on truly seamless fashion created using newly developed manufacturing techniques.
Seriously. And don't even get me started on medical researchers. They need to start creating cures for cancer and AIDS, not more research.
I have the option to turn safe-search off. Also, there are different types of censorship. You can just as easily argue that laws against letting minors purchase pornography or watch R-rated movies unaccompanied by an adult are forms of censorship. But this type of censorship is more benign. I think it's pointless to try to shield your children from pornography, but parents certainly have that right, the government (if by the people) can reasonably act upon that right however futile it might be, and also companies producing what's considered "adult material" have the social responsibility to show some consideration for individuals who don't want to be exposed to it. Now, our society has also come to agree on general principles on how to regulate "adult material" even if the term is vaguely defined(but there is a persistent public discourse about the issue, and there are opportunities for legal recourse whenever a party on a particular side of the issue feels the system is unfair). So our laws that prohibit the distribution of "adult material" to minors is a sort of social agreement between various segments of our society.
Google's safe-search is also simply facilitating that social agreement by upholding its general principles. It's being considerate to the cultural attitude of our society in regards to the issue. The issue with the PRC government's censorship system is quite different. There is no public discourse, it is not a social agreement, it's simply a form of political control/passive coercion. It the chinese people had the opportunity to turn it off, to have legal recourse against the system, then it would be different.
Most public health issues in 3rd-world nations aren't a result of a lack of education. People in Africa who don't have access to safe drinking water are not defecating near their wells. Harsh living conditions in these areas arise from not having developed public infrastructure which includes sewage/sanitation systems, water processing plants/irrigation systems/plumbing systems, as well as an education system. But these problems all arise from social unrest. Thinking that Africans need people to tell them not to crap in their water is a pretty condescending attitude to take. You might as well tell some ethiopian kid that he should wash his hands before he picks half-rotten food out of the garbage to eat. It's not that these people lack the common sense abilities that individuals in developed countries possess. It's just that individuals in developing countries often have more on their minds--like not getting hacked up with machetes or raped by militant groups.
A real dog is a complex biological system with biochemical mechanisms in its brain programmed to reflect emotions such as happiness and sadness when certain biochemical processes are triggered indirectly through outside stimulus.
A robot dog is a system of mechanical parts running an electronic logic system designed to reflect emotions such as happiness and sadness when certain internal program processes are triggered through outside stimulus.
Reverse racism is indeed still racism. You're describing one of the differences between our society's reactions to the two different forms of racism. The term wasn't created to justify reverse racism, only to identify the difference in how particular forms of racism affects our society. No one is trying to say that a black racist is any better than a white racist, but there are fundamental differences due to the cultural context that are important to those who are studying the sociological effects of racism/prejudice.
Also, in the subculture of an all black community in the U.S., black males would probably be the dominant social group even though in the larger cultural context of the entire nation they are still a subordinate group. So in the case of you (I'm assuming you're non-black) making a racist remark against blacks in an all-black community, that could be an instance of reverse racism. Morally, it's no less reprehensible, but the cultural reaction and consequences of you making such a remark in an all-black neighborhood would be different than if you had done the same in a social environment dominated by whites.
Most sociologists and psychologists don't treat reverse racism as any better than racism by the dominant social group. Also, technically, the dominant social group does not have to be the majority. It's whichever social group which has the most privilege/power/cultural influence over a given society. So while whites in South Africa might have been a minority during Apartheid, they were still the dominant social group. It's understandable why the term can be confusing, but it makes sense in the sociological context it's usually used in. Ofcourse, part of the phenomenon of reverse racism is that in most societies it is more tolerated than racism committed by the dominant social group--but this has less to do with the terminology than the social context in which this form of racism occurs.
Well, then it shouldn't be applied to cultural studies. And by definition, the dominant social group in any society does experience certain privileges. Reverse racism is only an unhelpful term if you don't understand what it means. It's still racism, and is no more justifiable than racism against less privileged social groups, but the distinction has to be made since this form of racism often manifests itself in different ways and is treated by society differently.
There is a useful distinction if you're studying sociology or psychology. Reverse racism occurs when there are racist actions taken against the dominant social group. This has different implications and consequences than when a minority social group is the target of racism.
Not only that, but seeing as how he used opium recreationally, he'd probably be imprisoned for that as well.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
You can also steal things from any store, by walking out without paying for it, as long as no one catches you. My friends do it all the time. A self-checkout machine doesn't really make much of a difference. But try walking out of a supermarket with a ham and a leg of lamb stuffed in your pants.
Tissue cultures grow just as other simple organisms do. They also have their own system of metabolism to convert the liquid nutrients into energy. They exhibit internal motion just as other simple cellular life forms. They reproduce through mitosis. They respond to stimuli in different ways depending on the type of tissue it is. They are composed of cells. So how does this not fit the definition of a life form. It may not be a lifeform that naturally occurs outside of the human body, but a tissue culture exhibits all the qualities of life.
I think you might want to just revise your definition of what is a human being.
Which properties of life do the other types of cells in the human body not exhibit? A culture of almost any type of cell in the human body will continue to grow and exhibt all properties of life when placed in liquid nutrients.
You're claim that embryos are human beings is not based on philosophical arguments. They are based on arbitrary beliefs (which are most likely religiously inspired). The only thing you've supported your claim with is a dubious definition of what a human being is, paying no attention to the biological distinction between various stages of human reproduction.
Let me ask you one last question. Do you have children or plan on having children with your wife? If you already have kids, did you ever mourn for the other 2-3 embryos that likely died before each child was born? If you are planning on having children in the future, are you going to grieve for the 2-3 embryos that will likely be killed before your first child was born? Will you tell your children about their siblings that didn't make it? Keep in mind that most spontaneous abortions happen so early in the pregnancy that most couples don't even realize that there was conception.
I'm working on a game where you play a teenage runnaway who has to learn how to survive in the streets.
The game starts you off at a truck stop in the midwest where you have to perform sexual favors for truck drivers for meth and cash. As you progress, you learn more sexual techniques and get more and more hooked on meth.
After you reach a certain level, you'll be spotted by a guy named Donkey King, who pays you very little and pimps you out on the streets as the two of you travel to the westcoast together.
The money you earn from turning tricks can either go into clothes, your hair, plastic surgery, or more drugs. The drugs will let you turn more tricks per day, but they'll hurt your health and increase your chances of catching an STD.
Then maybe somewhere in the middle you'll be offered mini-missions like modeling for an adult magazine, a gig at a bachelor party, a role in a porno, or maybe even a donkey show.
Your life isn't unlimited though, and after a while you will be paid less and less until eventually you're doing midget porn/sheisa videos for $8/hr. It's up to you to check yourself into rehab, get a job at walmart, and get knocked up by your parole officer so that you may have kids to continue a new journey with.
This should give enough variations so that if you regret something you did in the previous life, you can play as your children to choose another direction (such as not doing that donkey show in TJ where you think you caught herpes from).