• Arkouda@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    It is really funny to me that you keep cherry picking my responses. It is even more funny that you believe I am arguing against “the facts of the matter”.

    I never said “unrestricted access to any drug”, did I?

    So you definitely agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted, for the good of society?

    What do you believe is the difference between “Prohibition of all drugs to be lifted” and “unrestricted access to any drug”?

    Last I checked prohibition means “to prohibit”, or in other words “to restrict”, so a lack of prohibition is a lack of restriction. In your own words “Prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society”.

    To quote you, to you.

    You’d rather chew your own leg off than answer my question from the previous comment. That’s how strong the propaganda is, and I don’t know why it affects you so much.

    I will pose my questions one more time.

    Did you ever stop to think that the propaganda you speak of is directly influenced by exactly what steeznson was speaking about?

    Why do you believe that anti-drug propaganda only began in the 20th century?

    Do you have anything other than wikipedia links to back your stance up? Say, a real study done on the impacts of anti-drug propaganda through the ages which demonstrates that the 20th century was the most militant with it?

    Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?

    I am most interested in your answer on the last question regarding religion, because you have dodged that one completely while merely touching on the others in your rants.

    Is it because to acknowledge religions influence on drug prohibition is to acknowledge that you are wrong about anti drug propaganda “technically” starting in the 20th century just like electricity was “technically” discovered by ancient Greeks?

    You’re just so pretentious it twists my stomach.

    You should really read that link I commented about “projection”.

    • steeznson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Man you had a lot more effort to dedicate to this guy than me lol

      I wonder when he’ll realise that everyone he’s been rude to was basically agreeing with him

      • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        More time than effort on my part. You know you have nothing going on when interacting with a person like that is a reasonable way to kill time. lol

        I’m not sure they ever will realize that. We probably wound up being posted on some anti drug prohibition forum with a “see what I have to deal with?” title and a lot of circle jerking. haha

          • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I am not sure if you meant it as such, but that was a great burn. haha

            I absolutely empathize with the “Bullheaded, everyone is wrong but me” teenage mentality as well. Especially that mentality mixed with unfettered access to the internet.

            Age sure does wear it thin though. haha

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              See, but you are wrong, and now you’re trying to pretend you’re not, because you’re a ~20 something male who can’t accept when they make a mistake, and they always have to learn through being humiliated, than being ashamed for a few weeks, and then not doing that same mistake publicly again.

              Remember the time you actually linked “that’s a fallacy” , thinking naming a fallacy means you “win” a debate, when you presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong, when obviously, that’s not the case.

                • Dasus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  a day or so about drug liberalisation.

                  But you’re pretending we’re not arguing over drug “liberalisation”, so which is it? Am I arguing with you over that, or something else?

                  The only point of disagreement is

                  So you get to ignore all the stupid mistakes you made, and say what the conversation is about? Seems like you haven’t had any conversations in real life…

                  I think you need to work on your persuasive writing and debating skills

                  Oh God, more of this. It’s so clear what you value and what you pretend to be. Like when you thought that you’d win an argument by yelling out “fallacy”, as if that meant that another person has to be wrong. Showing so clearly that you think that is an incredibly clear sign of how immature you are, philosophically.

                  You’re pretending you don’t know what an implication is (while still arguing based on what you think I implied), you’re pretending like drug wars didn’t start in the 20th century, and you’re pretending you didn’t say all the stupid shit you did. So, what do you think of the book? (Which you haven’t read, like you’ve not read any others on the subject either.)

                  Quite frankly, I thank you for the entertainment.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Hey how about that time when you thought that saying “fallacy” wins you an argument?

          Remember, you larping someone who understand how debating works? Remember that? Oh you don’t, because it’d show just how much of a master debater you are?: )

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        No, he’s not agreeing with me.

        You don’t understand the propaganda.

        Do you think that if everyone who agreed on cannabis being mostly harmless, we’d still have cannabis prohibition? Ofc not.

        And cannabis isn’t even causing the most harm. We can actually get rid of drug cartels and make hundreds of billions of dollars in tax money by legalising drugs, but the efforts to do so are slowed by fucknuts like you and him who don’t realise that you can slow something down even when you pretend to agree with it.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      What do you believe is the difference between “Prohibition of all drugs to be lifted” and “unrestricted access to any drug”?

      You should check a dictionary. A prohibition is when something is illegal to sell. Do you think if something isn’t illegal, it’s unrestricted? Why would you think that?

      You’d rather chew your own leg off than answer my question from the previous comment. That’s how strong the propaganda is, and I don’t know why it affects you so much.

      I will pose my questions one more time.

      And I stand by that.

      I’ve answered your questions, but you’re not asking them for any reason. You’re pretending to ask them for a reason. Honestly, what are you, like, 20? This is insanely childish.

      #Show me drug propaganda from the 19th century please. I’ll wait right here. You will desperately google some, but the only thing you’ll find from the 19th century is drug adverts, not propaganda. There are a few cases in history of so called vice laws, but prohibition =/= drug propaganda. Perhaps you didn’t realise that, huh?

      Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?

      I do yes. You do not.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen

      Why did you ask for me to mention ten books when you can’t address a single one that I name? Perhaps because you’re a sort of silly little boy who’s pretending to know a lot about something they don’t, thinking that because they’ve smoked weed, they’re not “against the prohibition”, while actively fighting it.

      Anyone supporting the prohibition of drugs is acting against the well-being of society in general. That’s an indisputable fact I can and have backed with peer-reviewed studies.

      edit oh that’s a fun comment about “projection” from some teen who thinks he “wins” debates by saying “that’s a fallacy” as if you’ve ever opened a philosophy book :DD let alone understood the first thing about psychology. you’ve tried your teenage gotchas several times and i’ve shown you how much of a tit you were being and wow, you instantly stop with the argument I made you feel stupid about.

      • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Why did you ask for me to mention ten books when you can’t address a single one that I name?

        1. You never named 10 books, while I provided a source for over 200.

        2. The purpose was to see what you are reading so I can know what you know. It is not a “gotcha”. You claimed to be well read so it shouldn’t be hard to list off a few books on a topic you also claim to know a lot about.

        Perhaps because you’re a sort of silly little boy who’s pretending to know a lot about something they don’t, thinking that because they’ve smoked weed, they’re not “against the prohibition”, while actively fighting it.

        Oh look! More projection! I do have to say your one trick pony show is beginning to get boring.

        Anyone supporting the prohibition of drugs is acting against the well-being of society in general. That’s an indisputable fact I can and have backed with peer-reviewed studies.

        So you keep saying, and yet I have never made a claim otherwise.

        edit oh that’s a fun comment about “projection” from some teen who thinks he “wins” debates by saying “that’s a fallacy” as if you’ve ever opened a philosophy book :DD let alone understood the first thing about psychology. you’ve tried your teenage gotchas several times and i’ve shown you how much of a tit you were being and wow, you instantly stop with the argument I made you feel stupid about.

        You should probably stop serial editing everyone of your comments. Nothing screams “Chronically online edge lord” quite like constant edits. (As well as commenting on every other comment in this thread, whether it was directed at you or not.)

        All in all you need to up your game. Go back to your echo chamber and complain about all the stupid people who just “don’t get it” so you can tucker yourself out for a little nap. I think you need it.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          You never named 10 books, while I provided a source for over 200.

          And what exactly does this prove? That you know what Google is? Are you pretending you weren’t asking for 10 books I had read on the subject? But, you just admitted you asked for it because you wanted to know what I’d read, so you obviously didn’t want a googled list of books, which you then provided yourself? Continuing with your asinine prescriptive bullshit, but not applying it to yourself? Seeing as how I never said “unrestricted access to any drug.”

          Oh look! More projection!

          Oh look, a kid pretending he understands psychology!

          and yet I have never made a claim otherwise.

          Pretending like you don’t understand what an implication is. Very mature, indeed.

          You should probably stop serial editing everyone of your comments.

          Oh no, I made a typo! Nothing screams “chronically online edgelord” (that’s how you spell “edgelord”) just like thinking that editing a comment is somehow bad.

          You try all the most edgelord things, like screaming “fallacy” to win a debate. Remember that? Remember when you tried winning an argument by calling it fallacious, like the edgelord you are, who has never picked up a book on philosophy, yet wants to pretend online he understands rhetoric.

          All in all you need to up your game.

          I haven’t laughed that hard in months

          • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I really think you should lay down for that nap, or perhaps, get your bottle. Anything to help this tantrum you are throwing.

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              You know what’s another really edgelord (not “edge lord”) thing?

              To not answer questions put to you after you pretend to be a master debater.

              Perhaps it’s because you literally can’t answer any of those questions, because they show what a bad faith actor you are.

              No answers about the books, after having asked for them. Have you read the list of books you linked? Ofc you haven’t. You yourself admit you asked for books I had read, then somehow think a list of books from an Amazon search is related?

              The wars for drugs weren’t wars on drugs, but for them, silly.

              All in all, you need to up your game. (Thinking you “win” a debate by loudly yelling "fallacy! Hahahah, so good)

              • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                It is funny that you think I am debating you, or that I owe you an answer to any of your questions when you refuse to answer mine.

                You really have to get over the book thing. I get it, you don’t read as much as you claim but that is no reason to behave this way.

                Take a breather bud. This is no good for you.

                • Dasus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Well, if you don’t think you’re “debating”, why did you answer by quoting something I said and then just writing “fallacious”? I’ll tell you. Because first off, you don’t know philosophy and thought pointing out a fallacy means you “win” the conversation.

                  I haven’t refused to answer any of your questions, buddy boy, you just keep shifting your goalposts. Maybe you’ve heard of that expression when larping a philosopher?

                  You asked for books. That was the first question you had, after I said I can provide literature. You then arbitrarily asked for ten books, supposing I haven’t read ten books on the subject. (If narratives are included, I definitely have.) I then provided a lot of literature, emphasising the book “Good Cop, Bad War”, which highlights how the drug war has worked and what is has done, and why it is that it exists in the first place. You can read a lot of that from Noam Chomsky as well, as the “War ON drugs” (not war for drugs, like the opium wars you referred to) began in the States, and Chomsky is really good at breaking down internal US politics of the time.

                  But you’re not looking to discuss the subject, because you know you’re wrong, so you can’t address it, because you’re not a big enough person to actually admit when someone else makes a good point or proves you wrong. Perhaps you got too much of that in real life and now thought that you wouldn’t have to take any online. Well, you know, if you keep being wrong so stubbornly, and using “fallacies” to “debate” then, you’re gonna have to learn to accept people calling you out on it.

                  • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    You say all of this like it is impossible to scroll back up the thread and see exactly what happened.

              • PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                To not answer questions put to you after you pretend to be a master debater.

                not answering questions, especially loaded or irrelevant ones, is a great debate strategy.

                edit:

                while i think they are picking a semantic fight about a topic on which they are not prepare to engage, your engagement has been kind of shitty toward them, too. i think you could be better and still show that they are silly and ignorant of the topic.

                • Dasus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  your engagement has been kind of shitty toward them, too

                  Oh I don’t deny that for a second. I’m very fed up with people who get snarky like that over the drug war. It’s because of the drug propaganda. Even people who use them themselves, have this inbuilt aversion to even thinking about drug legalisation. Genuinely, I’ve had the conversation with hundreds of people in real life, and it’s just something… insidious. So I fight it whenever I can, and there’s no irl social repercussions for being a dick on Lemmy, so if he’s being a dick and defending the prohibition of drugs — even if they actually oppose it, as they admit — I am going to respond with the same measure.

                  This is an exaggeration, but I genuinely believe that a complete reform of drug laws is essential to the entire planet. Basically all crime funds itself through illegal drugs, so we’d basically take out drug cartels by legalising drugs, and through that, all the other shit that’s adjacent. A metric fuckton of crime would just up and vanish, basically. As the drug trade will exist, legal or not, but if it’s legal, there’s legal ways to go about it, so deals can be made, contracts drawn up, and if people break them or don’t pay, one can use the legal system to get one’s dues. When it’s illegal, you just have to hammer a guy’s knees, because you can’t put the drug debt into an official system, but you can’t let a guy go either, nor can you go to the police and say he’s stolen from you.

                  And that’s just the first part.

                  Because have you ever been in any event that people mainly used ecstasy in? Just… no-one is angry. No violence. Complete opposite of a regular Saturday night in a Finnish bar which is full of implied threats and menacing looks.

                  I’m not saying everyone should do ecstasy, but I am saying that when given a choice, a lot of people I know would prefer ecstasy if it was socially acceptable (they use maybe 1-2 times a year, go to an event of some sort, so as to not be in the local clubs). And going by the literature in psychiatric and psychological treatments which use psychedelics/mdma, they could be amazingly helpful to the global community. I once actually made a video called “make Trump do LSD”. I stand by the sentiment, but the video was shit.

                  Anyway, even those mates who go to some ecstasy gigs a few times a year, they got really upset one time when we started talking about it. Which to me is just crazy. They know. They use the drugs. But when I asked why, it was a plethora of the same indirect, vague prohibition supporting bullshit, which comes through the shitty drug war propaganda.