|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 25, 2014 13:02:11 GMT -5
One argument I noticed that people have against 1984 is that the people are way too easily manipulated in the book, and that it's unrealistic. Of course as a WWE fan I beg to differ that point.. Those people are fools. All you have to do is look at a riot in any corner of the Earth to see how easily people are swayed. |
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on Jan 25, 2014 13:04:19 GMT -5
That makes no sense. Pot is worse in virtually every possible way, except for accessibility. Personally, I'm not for prohibition of alcohol OR pot, but the current system is in place for a reason, and that reason is because the preponderance of evidence collected over the last 40 years is very clear; marijuana's effects are both wider ranging and more profound than those of alcohol. Again, I would point out; in practical terms, there is almost no such thing as a casual pot user. There are millions of casual drinkers. There are also skewed statistics due to the fact that alcohol leaves your system over a 24 hour period, while marijuana is traceable in one's system for up to 30 days. For example one can commit a crime or cause an accident, test positive for marijuana while no longer under its influence and= suspect in car accident tested positive for marijuana. A hit and run involving a drunk driver, suspect is not apprehended until days later= no drugs or alcohol are thought to be involved Which I think is ridiculous. pot may be in your system for 30 days, but it doesn't mean it's in affect that long. I find it almost as ridiculous as "if someone smokes pot, thy're bad.' |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 25, 2014 13:07:04 GMT -5
I find it almost as ridiculous as "if someone smokes pot, thy're bad.' To quote the little girl from Spaced Invaders... "they're not bad... just stupid." |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 25, 2014 13:08:34 GMT -5
Oh, and btw, the notion that drunk drivers are doing hit and runs, getting caught days later, and everybody thinks they were alcohol free, is ridiculous. You do realize that the police actually investigate crimes, right? They don't just assume "hey, we caught Joe and he's not drunk now, he must not have been drunk then."
... in fact, the notion that drunk drivers are committing a bunch of hit and runs and not getting busted till days later is, in itself, provably false.
|
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on Jan 25, 2014 13:11:45 GMT -5
Oh, and btw, the notion that drunk drivers are doing hit and runs, getting caught days later, and everybody thinks they were alcohol free, is ridiculous. You do realize that the police actually investigate crimes, right? They don't just assume "hey, we caught Joe and he's not drunk now, he must not have been drunk then." ... in fact, the notion that drunk drivers are committing a bunch of hit and runs and not getting busted till days later is, in itself, provably false. I agree with that  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2014 13:19:50 GMT -5
One argument I noticed that people have against 1984 is that the people are way too easily manipulated in the book, and that it's unrealistic. Of course as a WWE fan I beg to differ that point.. Those people are fools. All you have to do is look at a riot in any corner of the Earth to see how easily people are swayed. Mob mentality |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2014 13:22:05 GMT -5
Oh, and btw, the notion that drunk drivers are doing hit and runs, getting caught days later, and everybody thinks they were alcohol free, is ridiculous. You do realize that the police actually investigate crimes, right? They don't just assume "hey, we caught Joe and he's not drunk now, he must not have been drunk then." ... in fact, the notion that drunk drivers are committing a bunch of hit and runs and not getting busted till days later is, in itself, provably false. Somebody driving home.from the bar and side swiping a car, continuing on their way home only to be found out later happens quite a.bit. I love how typing on my Kindle seems to add unwanted periods everywhere. |
|
muta75
Jobber
RONDA ROUSEY IS THE BEST FIGHTER ON THE PLANET
Posts: 3,606 
|
Post by muta75 on Jan 25, 2014 13:28:56 GMT -5
pot has worse long term effects than alcohol? simply and ridiculously untrue..
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 25, 2014 13:31:23 GMT -5
Somebody driving home.from the bar and side swiping a car, continuing on their way home only to be found out later happens quite a.bit. I love how typing on my Kindle seems to add unwanted periods everywhere. Yes, I'm not denying that drunk driving happens or that it's a serious problem. We, culturally, once held an attitude of "eh, what's a little drunk driving?" My own grandfather (an alcoholic) was caught driving drunk on numerous occasions, and would simply be escorted home by the police, because it wasn't considered a big deal at the time. Only in the past few decades have we gotten serious about prosecuting the crime in a way that might actually deter people. My point is that most "hit and run" accidents are resolved within 48 hours, and if there is an injury involved, there is always a thorough investigation. In most jurisdictions, the court system does not require a failed test as evidence that someone was driving drunk.... anecdotal evidence (i.e. "the person was at a bar or party and was seen drinking") combined with the obviously erratic driving is taken as evidence. One of the problems as it relates to alcohol is that in many areas, the laws are too lenient. A person who is caught drunk driving pays a huge fine and probably loses their license (depending on where they are), but the evidence shows that they then simply continue to drive without a license, and at that point, the legal system has no good answer. Huge fines mean nothing to people who have no money in the first place, and in most places judges are very reluctant to issue jail time for alcohol-related offenses. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 25, 2014 13:31:52 GMT -5
pot has worse long term effects than alcohol? simply and ridiculously untrue.. ... unless you actually consider things like "facts" and "science." |
|
muta75
Jobber
RONDA ROUSEY IS THE BEST FIGHTER ON THE PLANET
Posts: 3,606
|
Post by muta75 on Jan 25, 2014 13:35:48 GMT -5
pot has worse long term effects than alcohol? simply and ridiculously untrue.. ... unless you actually consider things like "facts" and "science." i am taking things like "facts" and "science" into consideration. i seriously doubt we'd be using the same source for said "facts" and "science"... |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 25, 2014 13:38:37 GMT -5
... unless you actually consider things like "facts" and "science." i am taking things like "facts" and "science" into consideration. i seriously doubt we'd be using the same source for said "facts" and "science"... Right. Because I would be referring to facts and science that are factual and scientific, and you'd be referring to nonsense junk science sponsored by the Legalize It crowd. |
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Jan 25, 2014 13:38:46 GMT -5
Frankly, if we were discussing ANY OTHER mumbling 40-something pot head whose use of the drug had significantly harmed his promising career and led to the physical abuse of his spouse, I don't think that you would be remotely so forgiving as you want to be right now. I've certainly never seen you defend Austin when we talk about his alcoholism. You'd be incorrect. I was defending Sean Waltman based on numerous factors, not limiting my judgment of his character to whether he consumes a substance that I myself am not necessarily in favor of. Similarly when I talk about how much I can't stand Austin it's for any number of reasons, frankly the least of which is his alcohol consumption. Waltman strikes me as a generally nice guy who happens to love pot. Austin strikes me as a petulant douche who happens to define himself by beer. As for spousal abuse, there's a difference between being such a scumbag that you randomly come home to punch your loving wife and finding yourself in an alcohol-fueled stupor with a fellow addict who's raging, breaking pictures, and attacking you first. You seem to believe the former and that's your prerogative, I wasn't there. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 25, 2014 13:41:01 GMT -5
Waltman strikes me as a generally nice guy who happens to love pot. Austin strikes me as a petulant douche who happens to define himself by beer. As for spousal abuse, there's a difference between being such a scumbag that you randomly come home to punch your loving wife and finding yourself in an alcohol-fueled stupor with a fellow addict who's raging, breaking pictures, and attacking you first. You seem to believe the former and that's your prerogative, I wasn't there. I'd agree with the first part of your statement, but the second doesn't work for me. Abuse is abuse. Even Waltman acknowledges how wrong he was. Addiction is evidence of poor character. If it's not, I'm not sure how one could EVER consider ANYTHING poor character. |
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Jan 25, 2014 13:43:09 GMT -5
i am taking things like "facts" and "science" into consideration. i seriously doubt we'd be using the same source for said "facts" and "science"... Right. Because I would be referring to facts and science that are factual and scientific, and you'd be referring to nonsense junk science sponsored by the Legalize It crowd. Look, I love you and all, but you're coming across as more ignorant and presumptuous than I've ever seen you. What's with you today? Do you really despise pot THAT much? That's an odd reaction for someone who was, by his own admittance, quite the partier in the past. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2014 13:45:12 GMT -5
Waltman strikes me as a generally nice guy who happens to love pot. Austin strikes me as a petulant douche who happens to define himself by beer. As for spousal abuse, there's a difference between being such a scumbag that you randomly come home to punch your loving wife and finding yourself in an alcohol-fueled stupor with a fellow addict who's raging, breaking pictures, and attacking you first. You seem to believe the former and that's your prerogative, I wasn't there. I'd agree with the first part of your statement, but the second doesn't work for me. Abuse is abuse. Even Waltman acknowledges how wrong he was. Addiction is evidence of poor character. If it's not, I'm not sure how one could EVER consider ANYTHING poor character. I think addiction is evidence of poor choices not poor character. Good people make bad decisions all the time. It's how one goes.about growing and learning from these decisions that d we fine their character. |
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 25, 2014 13:45:50 GMT -5
Right. Because I would be referring to facts and science that are factual and scientific, and you'd be referring to nonsense junk science sponsored by the Legalize It crowd. That's an odd reaction for someone who was, by his own admittance, quite the partier in the past. Not really. He obviously isn't very proud of who he was back then, so why would he endorse such things? Why would anyone in the same position as him endorse those things? |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 25, 2014 13:47:29 GMT -5
Look, I love you and all, but you're coming across as more ignorant and presumptuous than I've ever seen you. What's with you today? Do you really despise pot THAT much? That's an odd reaction for someone who was, by his own admittance, quite the partier in the past. *sigh* No, I don't "despise" pot. I'm not emotionally invested in it in any way. What I am passionate about is the truth. You can think it's some personal thing if you want; I have studied the facts. I would LOVE for muta to post some of his sources of "facts" and "science" so that I could demonstrate how easy it is to refute those claims, because I'm fairly certain that I know exactly which ones he's referring to (in a broad sense). The fact that I used to party is evidence of the fact that I'm capable of a failure in judgment, not evidence of the fact that pot doesn't hurt anything. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 25, 2014 13:48:43 GMT -5
I think addiction is evidence of poor choices not poor character. Good people make bad decisions all the time. It's how one goes.about growing and learning from these decisions that d we fine their character. ... right, which means that, when in the throw of addiction, someone is demonstrating poor character. If one develops character based on how one deals with such adversities, then it is inherent that one lacks character when one enters into them. |
|
muta75
Jobber
RONDA ROUSEY IS THE BEST FIGHTER ON THE PLANET
Posts: 3,606
|
Post by muta75 on Jan 25, 2014 13:49:32 GMT -5
i am taking things like "facts" and "science" into consideration. i seriously doubt we'd be using the same source for said "facts" and "science"... Right. Because I would be referring to facts and science that are factual and scientific, and you'd be referring to nonsense junk science sponsored by the Legalize It crowd. EXACTLY!!! keep up the good fight.. |
|
