|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dev wrote: |
If you believe in guns to facilitate suicides, why don't you also support the removal of all taxes from cigarettes and alcohol. You could legalize heroin & cocaine, two drugs that you can overdose on and die if you choose.
Give people some choices. That's what democracy is about. |
Did you read my post about the first US drug law? I most definitely support the end of "drug" prohibition. Incidentally, I bet you're greatly overestimating how dangerous heroin and cocaine in their unadulterated and responsibly administered forms are, as most people these days seem to thanks to all the initially anti-Chinese and later anti-Mexican and anti-Black propaganda spread through the then monopolistic media source of print news by the then upstart Federal Bureau of Narcotics (the precursor to the DEA).
But let's say we're just talking about genuinely harmful substances. Most would agree with putting potent carcinogens in that category, and cigarettes are obviously carcinogenic. Mandatory in my mind would be something like the Pure Food and Drug Act so people can know exactly what ingredients they're consuming and what effects those ingredients are apt to have. What I'd personally prefer is for the development of safer alternatives to cigarettes with similar effects through the same medium of smoking, although I recognize that trying to fix problems in this way more often than not just leads to worse problems (see Sergio's insight on the development of heroin following the racially charged laws restricting and later prohibiting opium). Ultimately, I wouldn't be completely opposed to the end of cigarette production, although I doubt that will happen regardless of what's tried to stop it.
And while I largely agree with overturning prohibition in general, I'll point out that few people (if any) would want to commit suicide by cancer, so that's kind of a faulty analogy. You wouldn't want a society where potent poisons were packaged to look like food and sold next to food in markets, nor would you likely want carcinogens sold as poisons since they don't actually kill so much as cause horrible deformity, illness, and general biological disequilibrium which eventually lead to death many years later. You might want poisons available for pests or even for euthanasia, but you'd want to make sure they were labeled clearly and sold in the appropriate contexts. Consumers would rightfully be upset if their food were to kill their kids or their rat poison were to be harmless and nutritious for rats. You could say that common sense issues about content purity amounts to being just as bad as someone who supports prohibition, but I think there's a pretty big gulf between the two views.
And I can't stand it when men/women make me pay lip service to the official topic of a thread with their irrational intolerance of interesting tangents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dev wrote: |
If you believe in guns to facilitate suicides, why don't you also support the removal of all taxes from cigarettes and alcohol. You could legalize heroin & cocaine, two drugs that you can overdose on and die if you choose.
Give people some choices. That's what democracy is about. |
Fella, you are some kind of glowing ball of positive energy! 
Cheer up and live life  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Men. What's up with you people? Seriously, relax! You gotta learn how to chill out and just, you know, be~~(<these are groovy marks). If I were a man, and I had all sorts of male privilage, I'd be like 'ah, sweet, so much male privilage! I think I'm going to chill out and just be for a while~~. But one of you dudes is all like "meh meh meh some girl likes her typically male dominated hobby enough to try to converse about it so I am going to get all wound up and not get laid for ages." Who wins? No one wins. not even a bronze. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
| Men. What's up with you people? Seriously, relax! You gotta learn how to chill out and just, you know, be~~(<these are groovy marks). If I were a man, and I had all sorts of male privilage, I'd be like 'ah, sweet, so much male privilage! I think I'm going to chill out and just be for a while~~. But one of you dudes is all like "meh meh meh some girl likes her typically male dominated hobby enough to try to converse about it so I am going to get all wound up and not get laid for ages." Who wins? No one wins. not even a bronze. |
Boxie,
I was just now arrangin legos. A message spilt forh from my analogue engineering sim.
It said: you're drunk, but listen anyway.
The equalizaton of gender is impossible until the issue of forced acquiessence is resolved.
There is a universal truth among Americans. God made men and women
Samuel Colt made them equal.
Physical prowess and genetically biological superiority thereof is thoroughly nullified by a thirty-eight saying *beep* you, i think not.
And that, my friends, is equality.
ETA: Although completely idiotic, there were relatively few spelling mistakes. Hazzah!
Last edited by .38 Special on Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DorkothyParker
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: Jeju
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lost at sea
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BaldTeacher wrote: |
Don't you get it? Womyn of the West are empowered rockstar princesses. Whatever image they choose for themselves its empowering. There's only one image for men that's acceptable. You have to wear dorky glasses, not work out, wear vintage clothing that's ironic and too small even for your skinny ass and make a smart-ass comment about everything.
Every time womyn swear they're saying f-you to the patriarchy. They don't have to watch their weight either because big is beautiful.
They swear because they're strong, empowered womyn. And then when they cry because you kind of yelled at them they're also strong and courageous because they're showing their emotions, which is empowering.
Now I'll start with the shaming language- You're just not man enough to handle a Western womyn. (Even though I'm always saying that womyn can be anything man can be, I shame men by saying they're not man enough. Double standards are empowering). Real men don't look for beauty and class. Only chauvinists do. You must have an Asian fetish. You must have been a loser back home. Sour grapes is an empowering defense mechanism for us feminists.
Anyway, I hope you learned your lesson. Now me and my fat oops, I mean empowered friends are going to go eat ice cream and watch Sex & The City and bitch about how men don't want us because we're too strong and beautiful. |
| Theodore Kaczynski wrote: |
| Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may not be as strong and as capable as men. |
I think he summed it up in 2 sentences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lost at sea wrote: |
| BaldTeacher wrote: |
Don't you get it? Womyn of the West are empowered rockstar princesses. Whatever image they choose for themselves its empowering. There's only one image for men that's acceptable. You have to wear dorky glasses, not work out, wear vintage clothing that's ironic and too small even for your skinny ass and make a smart-ass comment about everything.
Every time womyn swear they're saying f-you to the patriarchy. They don't have to watch their weight either because big is beautiful.
They swear because they're strong, empowered womyn. And then when they cry because you kind of yelled at them they're also strong and courageous because they're showing their emotions, which is empowering.
Now I'll start with the shaming language- You're just not man enough to handle a Western womyn. (Even though I'm always saying that womyn can be anything man can be, I shame men by saying they're not man enough. Double standards are empowering). Real men don't look for beauty and class. Only chauvinists do. You must have an Asian fetish. You must have been a loser back home. Sour grapes is an empowering defense mechanism for us feminists.
Anyway, I hope you learned your lesson. Now me and my fat oops, I mean empowered friends are going to go eat ice cream and watch Sex & The City and bitch about how men don't want us because we're too strong and beautiful. |
| Theodore Kaczynski wrote: |
| Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may not be as strong and as capable as men. |
I think he summed it up in 2 sentences. |
I think you are tourtured by a fear of innability to ~~ be. Chill, dudw, and just be |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Janny
Joined: 02 Jul 2008
Location: all over the place
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may not be as strong and as capable as men. |
That's not it. Or, at least, it shouldn't be. Women and men have different strengths, and that has not been acknowledged or respected by modern society. The balance of power remains with men because of their testosteronic-fueled quest for power. If women had this trait, I think society would be much different, starting way back with in the dark ages.
But no...gender roles are confused; it couldn't be more confusing these days to know what it means to be a man or woman. Especially women because this is still a competitive world based on capitalism, which works nicely for men.
A powerful, independent woman has days where she struggles with the "where's my home? where are my kids? what is my purpose?". A man will think of these questions less often. He is more comfortable with freedom. A woman always has this "biological mating monkey" on her back. (Don't get me wrong. There are many days where I enjoy my freedom immensely. But I'm sure I have different concerns than my male cohorts.)
Feminists are pissed because women have not been respected by men properly. Men have used their power to diminish the woman's role in society and control her completely. They do this because it feels good to have power (for men)....so women just became..fed up? Now it's all gone to hell.
When did it first start to all go downhill? I don't know...good question. Maybe the whole FUBAR situation was destined to be. Where will it all end, that's another good question.
Personally, I hope there is some cataclysmic catastrophe, where a huge portion of humankind is erased and we are forced to start over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Janny wrote: |
Personally, I hope there is some cataclysmic catastrophe, where a huge portion of humankind is erased and we are forced to start over. |
Don't bother. You know what would happen? The exact same thing.
Except instead of some glow-in-the-dark dude with a righteous beard and a private garden, they would worship Barak Obama and that Murdock guy with the money. The new holy text would be mythologized scraps of the Wall Street journal, found buried in clay pots among the ruins of New Babylon City.
And then, 6,800 years later, you know what would happen?
Nothing.
It would be exactly the same as it is today.
And some anonymous Netizen named Jannie would make a quip about slaughtering hundreds of millions, ala Noah's flood, in order to correct some minor cultural issues that complicate gender relations, which would then be followed by the usual bullshit from another Netizen named .44 Special.
That's exactly what would happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Janny
Joined: 02 Jul 2008
Location: all over the place
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Love it! Gold! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Janny wrote: |
| When did it first start to all go downhill? I don't know...good question. Maybe the whole FUBAR situation was destined to be. |
Terence McKenna had an answer for that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP3PsesHEXw&feature=related
His basic idea was that we started out as an egalitarian orgy prone group of primates until the Earth started to dry up, at which point we were forced to separate, we lost some of our social bonding, and we ended up experimenting with the new foods available in the consequently exposed grasslands. At that point, the precursor to humans discovered the psilocybin mushroom, which blurred the lines between the senses, allowing us the seeds of self-referential abstract thought, which piggybacked into the set of successful human traits riding on the established increase in visual acuity as well as CNS stimulation as well as an increase in sexual arousal, all of which psilocybin is known to be responsible for, making those who used psilocybin (as well as those who demonstrated traits similar to mild psilocybin highs endogenously, allowing them to somewhat artificially selected success in a psilocybin friendly culture) more successful at surviving to reproductive age and subsequently breeding. Thus, early humans returned to an egalitarian orgy prone way of life until the Earth dried up even further, at which point nearby mushrooms started to die out and, in a desperate effort to preserve as many as possible for use while searching out new sources, humans inadvertently invented alcoholic beverages from the honey they used as a preservative.
At this point, alcohol became the new and more reliably obtainable psychoactive of choice by also increasing the likelihood of its users to reproduce successfully, although this time they succeeded by becoming insensitive materialist jerks. The concept of property came into stronger focus shortly thereafter, as did the conscious understanding of the connection between copulation and child birth, leading to men extending the concept of property onto their children and the women who bore them. Women at this point were at a disadvantage to oppose this process as they were burdened with the dirty work of childbirth.
And I hate it when men/women don't realize that Terence McKenna is one of the top three human beings who've ever lived. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Janny wrote: |
| When did it first start to all go downhill? I don't know...good question. Maybe the whole FUBAR situation was destined to be. |
Terence McKenna had an answer for that:
[snip]
And I hate it when men/women don't realize that Terence McKenna is one of the top three human beings who've ever lived. |
Terence McKenna... wasn't he a character on South Park?
O, and alcohol is probably not a psychoactive. Just sayin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| * edited and deleted * |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeathPony
Joined: 28 May 2008
Location: watching a monk enter a love motel
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, the toilet seat thing.
I have at times had the same thought, but have settled upon this: if I wander into the bathroom in a sleepy daze and start to pee without looking, I pee on the toilet seat if it is down; if a woman wanders into the bathroom in a sleepy daze and sits to pee without looking, she drops into the toilet!
That, and too many guys have terrible aim and no social conscience. As a result, too many women (and men with a need to take care of business sitting) have to clean off the $%^# seat and cringe before using the facilities.
Ugh.
Anyway, how much effort does it really take to lift a toilet seat? And what does it cost us to be considerate to other people? Not much in either case, I think.
To keep in the theme of the topic, I hate it when people (whatever their bits look like) are inconsiderate to those around them. Or those who may follow after them.
edit: This was in response to a reply that was then removed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
