4/20 plans

[k-onmmunist]

Where is the prudery? Some - no, most - people simply don't want to smoke. It's "self righteous" when we look down on people that do but it's ok if the non-smokers are mocked for not "allowing themselves to get high?" And we have to explain to you why we don't want to get high? So my values have to meet yours or at least be explained because they're so "strange?" And I'm self righteous? Please.

No, we just don't need lectures about what we choose to do with our lives. If you don't smoke, good for you. Makes no difference to me.

But then again, you vote Santorum so I suppose other people's personal lives are a matter of great importance for you.

...and if you actually bothered to read some of the posts here and my response, you'll see that non-smokers are getting something like a lecture on how we ought to get high or at least explain our "strange" feelings against it. That is telling me what to do with my life but I know it's easier to avoid that so you can make a predictable but seriously reaching Santorum comment.

No-one is telling you to get high if you don't want to. Unlike the people you support, we respect yr. right to choose. Just don't come into this thread and act morally superior to us.

For about the third time now (your reading comprehension skills are seriously lacking), I am pointing out that the self righteous are telling us that we should at least explain why because our "strange" values don't make sense to them. That's someone getting on their high horse so knock off your hypocritical routine of whining about the people I support when you act just as morally superior.

And once again, YOU have failed to understand what we're saying, so maybe it's you who has the problem with reading comprehension - you came into this thread, presumably just to air how superior you are. No-one is telling you to do anything, it's just that if you come into a thread called "4/20 plans", then I think you should have at least a little bit of an idea of what the topic is going to be.

[Keystone Phil]

...

You are mind numbingly dense.

How did I come here to air my superiority? My post was directly in response to posts from others that wanted explanations for non-smokers "strange" values. Just because the thread is about smoking doesn't mean your reactions towards non-smokers aren't self righteous. That makes literally no sense. I understand the topic was about smoking but that doesn't mean my commentary is meant to be "morally superior."

[angus]

Just because the thread is about smoking ...

Ah, I had assumed it was about Adolf Hitler's birth.  Well, at first, when I first saw the title then I thought, "A Hitler thread by intent.  No Godwin necessary."  Then I thought, "nah, I'm a history buff, and I recently read Erik Larson's Tiergarten and Leon Uris' Armageddon and some other stuff, and I frequently watch the Nazi Channel, but how many people know, off the top of their heads, the birthday of Hitler.  Then again, if there's anywhere in the world that weirdos who happen to know the date of Hitler's birth congregate in large numbers, it has to be this forum."  Then I clicked on it and saw nothing other than folks saying that they were getting high, or taking a lady friend to a sushi bar, and pretty quickly realized it was about reefer day. 

I still haven't figured out what clarence's pun was. 

[fezzyfestoon]

...

You are mind numbingly dense.

How did I come here to air my superiority? My post was directly in response to posts from others that wanted explanations for non-smokers "strange" values. Just because the thread is about smoking doesn't mean your reactions towards non-smokers aren't self righteous. That makes literally no sense. I understand the topic was about smoking but that doesn't mean my commentary is meant to be "morally superior."

Right, just because someone doesn't have plans doesn't mean they're barred from discussing it. Like when I said I had no interest in buying guns in the gun ownership thread. Though forgive me as I'm on my phone and it's a pain in the ass to go back and read on, I don't recall anyone being mocked for not smoking. Which reminds me of my last post, how it makes no sense to me how seriously people take it. I can't imagine someone who smokes (other than teenagers trying to be badass) actually taking malicious aim at someone else simply based on the nature of the substance I general. Plus, it's such a non-issue for everyone but obnoxious self-righteous types on both sides. Like those California people going all crazy about the medicine and social conservatives bitching about society and some lack of morals.

[k-onmmunist]

...

You are mind numbingly dense.

How did I come here to air my superiority? My post was directly in response to posts from others that wanted explanations for non-smokers "strange" values. Just because the thread is about smoking doesn't mean your reactions towards non-smokers aren't self righteous. That makes literally no sense. I understand the topic was about smoking but that doesn't mean my commentary is meant to be "morally superior."

And once again you're playing the victim. I'm not being self-righteous at all. I have said REPEATEDLY, if you don't want to smoke then it's your choice. I've also pointed out that if things were run YOUR way, everyone in this thread who does smoke would go to jail. You are continually failing to point out how I'm considering you "strange".

[Keystone Phil]

...

You are mind numbingly dense.

How did I come here to air my superiority? My post was directly in response to posts from others that wanted explanations for non-smokers "strange" values. Just because the thread is about smoking doesn't mean your reactions towards non-smokers aren't self righteous. That makes literally no sense. I understand the topic was about smoking but that doesn't mean my commentary is meant to be "morally superior."

And once again you're playing the victim. I'm not being self-righteous at all. I have said REPEATEDLY, if you don't want to smoke then it's your choice. I've also pointed out that if things were run YOUR way, everyone in this thread who does smoke would go to jail. You are continually failing to point out how I'm considering you "strange".

No where am I "playing the victim." Please stop using childish escape routes when you're losing an argument. My response was to those here that wanted a reason for my "strange" lifestyle choice. That's acting morally superior and I (along with Marokai, who is anything but an ally of mine) was simply pointing out the self righteous and hypocritical behavior of such posters.

[k-onmmunist]

I'm not trying to use "childish escape routes" and I never said your lifestyle choice was strange. No-one is being self righteous except for people like you who come into this thread and then bitch when people react badly to you.

[Joe Republic]

Okay, it's now 4/23 and this thread is still going.  Going badly, in fact.  I suggest it be locked immediately, its participants issued infraction points accordingly, and parents arrested.

[fezzyfestoon]

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I don't believe there is any level of experience that would tender objective opinions about these things using your definition. I also happen to think past experiences of any kind change the nature of future experiences, which, again, I'm not limiting to these particular issues. I can understand the value of experience if we are looking for maximally informed positions but I simply don't think unexperienced people's positions should be thought to be less objective, particularly if they ostensibly derive from first principles. (Deriving opinions on very specific issues from first principles can be suspect for other reasons, of course, but I don't believe that's especially relevant here.)

Would an ideal observer be infinitely experienced, and if so, is that simply necessary to achieve infinite understanding (which I am not convinced of, by the by) or is it itself intrinsically important?

To answer your closing question first, yes. The more experience you have with anything, the more informed you become quite basically. No one can ever be completely experienced or completely objective, but the idea is to get as close as possible. And in this particular case, I think an altered state of mind cannot be objectively approached at all without ever having experienced it. How can someone understand it when their understanding under the influence is altered?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I understand what you're saying, but the desire to not alter one's state of mind beyond necessity is also one that can be positively argued for; experience isn't really quite as relevant there, since it's the default state. I wouldn't trust an anti-drug activist's opinions on the specifics of altered states, certainly, or a virgin's hot sex tips.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Speaking of mind altering- I have been having miserable sleeping problems for years now and I finally agreed to take Ambien for a limited time... that I believe is more potent then any drug...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's now 4/25.  Why is this thread still going?

[MaxQue]

It's now 4/25.  Why is this thread still going?

Well, when you're a pothead, I suppose the concept of days is quite distant.

[Torie]

It's now 4/25.  Why is this thread still going?

Folks love to argue about things they think they are "expert" on, and everybody thinks they are an expert about sex and pot.    You get less of this sort of thing when it comes to, e.g., Federal Reserve policy.

[Napoleon]

It's now 4/25.  Why is this thread still going?

Oh, never again will it be April 20th.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's now 4/25.  Why is this thread still going?

Oh, never again will it be April 20th.

You must not believe the Mayans...

[fezzyfestoon]

I understand what you're saying, but the desire to not alter one's state of mind beyond necessity is also one that can be positively argued for; experience isn't really quite as relevant there, since it's the default state. I wouldn't trust an anti-drug activist's opinions on the specifics of altered states, certainly, or a virgin's hot sex tips.

Right, ok. I don't think there was that much of a disagreement after all. I was probably smoking when I first posted haha

[Keystone Phil]

I'm not trying to use "childish escape routes" and I never said your lifestyle choice was strange. No-one is being self righteous except for people like you who come into this thread and then bitch when people react badly to you.

Yikes. Still not getting the picture? For about the seventh time, others said the lifestyle is strange and requires explaining. That's self righteous to me. I wasn't judging anyone for smoking so stop whining about me coming in here and lecturing others on their choices. I was defending my fellow non-smokers for the nonsense we receive because we choose not to smoke.

[k-onmmunist]

I'm not trying to use "childish escape routes" and I never said your lifestyle choice was strange. No-one is being self righteous except for people like you who come into this thread and then bitch when people react badly to you.

Yikes. Still not getting the picture? For about the seventh time, others said the lifestyle is strange and requires explaining. That's self righteous to me. I wasn't judging anyone for smoking so stop whining about me coming in here and lecturing others on their choices. I was defending my fellow non-smokers for the nonsense we receive because we choose not to smoke.

You recieve no nonsense for it that you haven't brought on yrself, but whatever.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why does Phil always feel the need to play the part of the martyr?

[Keystone Phil]

I'm not trying to use "childish escape routes" and I never said your lifestyle choice was strange. No-one is being self righteous except for people like you who come into this thread and then bitch when people react badly to you.

Yikes. Still not getting the picture? For about the seventh time, others said the lifestyle is strange and requires explaining. That's self righteous to me. I wasn't judging anyone for smoking so stop whining about me coming in here and lecturing others on their choices. I was defending my fellow non-smokers for the nonsense we receive because we choose not to smoke.

You recieve no nonsense for it that you haven't brought on yrself, but whatever.

Why does Phil always feel the need to play the part of the martyr?

Two hilariously predictable replies. You're proven wrong so it's time to quickly turn to the usual irrelevant responses. It's like if I mentioned your laughable bipolar political views, Windis.

Anyway, Marokai and others point out the blatant hypocrisy, I agree but somehow I'm the one being holier-than-thou and a martyr! Love it, kids. Love it.

[k-onmmunist]

And now you're bringing up things that aren't even irrelevant. You've acted like a complete child in this thread and many others, and for no good reason. I have NEVER, I repeat NEVER said that you should smoke weed other than if you feel like it. I simply find it a little bit annoying when people come into a thread about it and get preachy on the matter.

Now for the love of God, let it go.

[Keystone Phil]

And now you're bringing up things that aren't even irrelevant.

Ah. Like how I'm allegedly judgmental but no comment of mine was self righteous at all. I simply defended myself and others against comments that labeled my choice as "weird" and in need of explanation. But that's apparently a "childish" thing to do.