The effect of religion
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
im calling bullsh*t!
Be my guest. But my personal experience has seen otherwise. Being a druggy yourself, I'm sure your perception of your fellow-druggies is skewed. But of the people I've known: -One dropped out of college, decided to make a living selling fake IDs, was arrested, now lives with his rich parents on a golf course and golfs all day. -One moved onto cocaine and was arrested for selling that. -One quit his job for a year and took a bath about once a week. There are oodles more. I don't think I've known a single one who actually lived respectably. That's why I oppose its legalization. From what I've seen, its consistent use is no different that alcoholism (which is also defended by alcoholics).
im not arguing this all day, i actually have work to do for once, but dont take this as me admitting defeat. my only retort is, you must know A LOT of losers. anyone who has similar stories like Red's please post under this so i can check it out before i get off work today, i will be astounded if what he's claiming has been seen by many other people...
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
No it's not it's a plant, you can't grip bits of metal with it. I've yet to meet anyone whose life has been adversely affected, can't same say the same for alcohol. How exactly do you think it "hurts" people? or are you thinking of people putting their fingers in a vice?
That's the ironic part. I've never seen anybody actually ruin their life through alcohol. Maybe because it takes quite a bit more to become a raging alcoholic than a pothead. Poison Ivy is a plant too, btw.
-
Al Beback wrote:
So in your opinion, are atheists, agnostics, and other unreligious people capable of raising happy, moral children?
I don't have an opinion, I don't pesonally know any atheists or agnostics or unreligious people with children. Well, let me correct that. I have 3 kids myself and all 3 have children. of the 3: my daughter and son-in-law have one boy who is in his 20s. They are unreligious, their son has 2 children out of wedlock, is a high school drop out, and has been arrested for criminal trespass, essentially burglery. For comparison: my oldest son, a 20 year military vet, is unreligious but his wife is very religious. They have 3 children who are all honor role students, respectful and well behaved. my youngest son, a "born again Christian" and is working his way through divinity school, and his wife have 5 children. This family is very religious. Of the children: 1 is a marine serving in Iraq, 1 graduates from college this spring (a high achiever) and the remaining 3 are sill in high school or grade school. 2 of the 3 still in school are average students, one is a high achiever. Of the 5 only one would be considered to be a problem child. Draw your own conclusions.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Draw your own conclusions.
good genes? ;P
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
im not arguing this all day, i actually have work to do for once, but dont take this as me admitting defeat. my only retort is, you must know A LOT of losers. anyone who has similar stories like Red's please post under this so i can check it out before i get off work today, i will be astounded if what he's claiming has been seen by many other people...
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
It's not that I know a lot of losers. It's that all the losers I've ever met seem to be potheads. It's not an argument with a winner. I'm just relaying my personal experience and why I would oppose legalization of weed. I think that legalizing it is within the reasonable realm of democratic discourse (i.e. not being a leftist, I don't proclaim that it's my way or the highway). But based on my personal experience, I think it would be bad for the country and for individuals and I would therefore oppose it.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Draw your own conclusions.
good genes? ;P
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
VonHagNDaz wrote:
good genes?
a contributing factor.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Come on you've been sussed as a bullshit artist, so just piss off and leave it alone, you don't know what you're typing about.
Hey, I just call 'em like I see 'em. I've known people who have known people who's lives were ruined by alcohol. But I've never known anybody directly who has. Pot is quite another story.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Marijuana is a vice, meaning it hurts those that partake in it. Personally, I've known numerous people who began using it and in every single case of regular users (except one) their lives fell apart as a result.
im calling BULLSHIT! my friends parents smoke, one is a civil engineer with over 40 years on the job. the other is a qa engineer with around 30 years on the job. me personally, ive smoked since high school(no pun intended), graduated from there with a 4.0, and from college with a 3.5. most of my friends who smoke, all graduated from a respectable university with engineering degrees and most are currently in grad school. now i seriously doubt that this many people in this area are special cases, considering the people mentioned from my college were from all over the country. you dont see people pawning their valuables away for pot. you dont see people selling their bodies for pot. you never see someone on a marijuana binge getting into a car and killing innocent people... these people you say ruined their lives, were destined to become crack heads or heroin junkies before they took their 1st puff...
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
VonHagNDaz wrote:
you never see someone on a marijuana binge getting into a car and killing innocent people...
You do see an awful lot of bad grammar, punctuation, and participation in lame arguments though. Everything has its price...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
Al Beback wrote:
So in your opinion, are atheists, agnostics, and other unreligious people capable of raising happy, moral children?
I don't have an opinion, I don't pesonally know any atheists or agnostics or unreligious people with children. Well, let me correct that. I have 3 kids myself and all 3 have children. of the 3: my daughter and son-in-law have one boy who is in his 20s. They are unreligious, their son has 2 children out of wedlock, is a high school drop out, and has been arrested for criminal trespass, essentially burglery. For comparison: my oldest son, a 20 year military vet, is unreligious but his wife is very religious. They have 3 children who are all honor role students, respectful and well behaved. my youngest son, a "born again Christian" and is working his way through divinity school, and his wife have 5 children. This family is very religious. Of the children: 1 is a marine serving in Iraq, 1 graduates from college this spring (a high achiever) and the remaining 3 are sill in high school or grade school. 2 of the 3 still in school are average students, one is a high achiever. Of the 5 only one would be considered to be a problem child. Draw your own conclusions.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
No conclusions can be reached through the personal experiences of one person, or even of everyone who posts in these forums. I'm atheist but consider myself a very moral person and spend a great deal of mental effort defining that morality, because I believe it to be important to be a responsible adult. And I'm not alone. It would be a mistake to attribute religious conviction as the sole or even major determiner of behavior and life choices; even the most devout religious individuals have been known to live depraved lives.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
you never see someone on a marijuana binge getting into a car and killing innocent people...
You do see an awful lot of bad grammar, punctuation, and participation in lame arguments though. Everything has its price...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
Shog9 wrote:
You do see an awful lot of bad grammar, punctuation, and participation in lame arguments though. Everything has its price...
:laugh: That's kind of my point! Potheads don't even realize how marginilized their lives become because they're looking out from inside the fishbowl. Sure it doesn't incite violence, but does it need to in order to be detrimental. BTW, another guy I knew got high and jumped on the highway going over 100MPH at night. He claimed that being high made him a better driver.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
I am talking about the idiots who blow themselves up in the name of Allah
could i ask you what will makes you kill you self ?? don't say idiots , they have the brave to die for what they believe in. i don't understand why in your opinion they are idiots ?? please tell me
When you get mad...THINK twice that the only advice Tamimi - Code
Yes, so brave to kill innocent people. They are idiots for believing that is what their religion teaches them. One of the cornerstones of the major religions is be nice to your fellow mankind. But these IDIOTS have twisted the words to fit their own needs and lost the roots of their religion.
__________________ Bob is my homeboy.
-
Hey, I just call 'em like I see 'em. I've known people who have known people who's lives were ruined by alcohol. But I've never known anybody directly who has. Pot is quite another story.
Ok, I have known several individuals whose lives have been ruined by alcohol, yet none whose lives have been ruined by pot smoking (and I know several). So my personal experience, being equally as important as yours, says the exact opposite of your experience. Therefore, I must be right, pot doesn't hurt anyone. Now, does that sound reasonable? Of course not. Personal experience is no replacement for real evidence and honestly, the subject of illicit drug use is so controversial that nobody is willing to do honest, objective studies on the subject. They're always trying to make a conclusion either that pot DOESN'T hurt or that it DOES. Personally, I have never and will never smoke tobacco OR pot, and that is because I value my own well being and state of mind enough that I think they are bad choices. But that is my choice, and not one I'm going to make for anyone else. The fact is, national policies controlling behavior do nothing but cost massive quantities of money and do little to inhibit the behavior in question, because people are people and they'll do as they please whether or not it's illegal, because there will always be someone willing to sell them what they want to buy. It's the lesser of two evils to legalize stuff so that at least it can be regulated and taxed. And even maybe then people can have objective conversations on the stuff, rather than heated debates based on circumstantial and shaky evidence.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
you never see someone on a marijuana binge getting into a car and killing innocent people...
You do see an awful lot of bad grammar, punctuation, and participation in lame arguments though. Everything has its price...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
Pardon me. I was not aware that we had a grammar Nazi in our midst. If you would prefer me to take the time to punctuate and correct all of the errors in all of my posts, I will gladly do so. Please, let me know if this minor inconvenience will make your time at The Soapbox more enjoyable. Regarding my participation in lame arguments, it's a character flaw comparable to making comments about one's bad grammar and punctuation inside of a forum.
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
Pardon me. I was not aware that we had a grammar Nazi in our midst. If you would prefer me to take the time to punctuate and correct all of the errors in all of my posts, I will gladly do so. Please, let me know if this minor inconvenience will make your time at The Soapbox more enjoyable. Regarding my participation in lame arguments, it's a character flaw comparable to making comments about one's bad grammar and punctuation inside of a forum.
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
VonHagNDaz wrote:
Please, let
That comma really shouldn't be there.
-
Ok, I have known several individuals whose lives have been ruined by alcohol, yet none whose lives have been ruined by pot smoking (and I know several). So my personal experience, being equally as important as yours, says the exact opposite of your experience. Therefore, I must be right, pot doesn't hurt anyone. Now, does that sound reasonable? Of course not. Personal experience is no replacement for real evidence and honestly, the subject of illicit drug use is so controversial that nobody is willing to do honest, objective studies on the subject. They're always trying to make a conclusion either that pot DOESN'T hurt or that it DOES. Personally, I have never and will never smoke tobacco OR pot, and that is because I value my own well being and state of mind enough that I think they are bad choices. But that is my choice, and not one I'm going to make for anyone else. The fact is, national policies controlling behavior do nothing but cost massive quantities of money and do little to inhibit the behavior in question, because people are people and they'll do as they please whether or not it's illegal, because there will always be someone willing to sell them what they want to buy. It's the lesser of two evils to legalize stuff so that at least it can be regulated and taxed. And even maybe then people can have objective conversations on the stuff, rather than heated debates based on circumstantial and shaky evidence.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
I never came to any of those conclusions. What I specifically said is that, given my personal experience, I will continue to oppose legalized marijuana. That's its use or restriction are subject to the democratic desires of the public. Personally, I believe its detrimental to the nation and to individuals. Your experience, being different than mine, might lead you to a different conclusion. That's where democracy comes into play. Of course, since potheads are too lazy to vote, I'll probably always win.
-
Shog9 wrote:
You do see an awful lot of bad grammar, punctuation, and participation in lame arguments though. Everything has its price...
:laugh: That's kind of my point! Potheads don't even realize how marginilized their lives become because they're looking out from inside the fishbowl. Sure it doesn't incite violence, but does it need to in order to be detrimental. BTW, another guy I knew got high and jumped on the highway going over 100MPH at night. He claimed that being high made him a better driver.
Red Stateler wrote:
He claimed that being high made him a better driver.
:shrug: Even if it did, at least in terms of improving reaction time or something (highly unlikely, but...) - it's still dumb to go out speeding at night. I don't agree one bit with the drug laws in this country, especially with regard to weed - there are more than a few friends who've used the stuff to lead something approaching normal lives after illness or injury had left them in constant pain and doctors had left them horribly messed up on painkillers (hydrocodone - the real opiate of the masses...). But none of that changes the fact that it does affect your judgment and perception, and only a fool would ignore or marginalize those effects.
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
Please, let
That comma really shouldn't be there.
Red Stateler wrote:
That comma really shouldn't be there
Interrupters - Use commas to set off introductory words and expressions which interrupt the sentence. These expressions are often called parenthetical expressions because the words themselves are not essential to the sentence and could be placed in parentheses. Examples of introductory words and interrupters: yes, no, well, indeed, nevertheless, however, I believe, in fact , of course, in my opinion, on the other hand, to tell the truth, on the contrary.
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
Pardon me. I was not aware that we had a grammar Nazi in our midst. If you would prefer me to take the time to punctuate and correct all of the errors in all of my posts, I will gladly do so. Please, let me know if this minor inconvenience will make your time at The Soapbox more enjoyable. Regarding my participation in lame arguments, it's a character flaw comparable to making comments about one's bad grammar and punctuation inside of a forum.
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
VonHagNDaz wrote:
I was not aware that we had a grammar Nazi in our midst.
I wasn't aware you were gonna take that personally... I'd have added "wearing oversized sunglasses" to the list. ;P Lighten up, duuude. It's a joke, see...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
Red Stateler wrote:
That comma really shouldn't be there
Interrupters - Use commas to set off introductory words and expressions which interrupt the sentence. These expressions are often called parenthetical expressions because the words themselves are not essential to the sentence and could be placed in parentheses. Examples of introductory words and interrupters: yes, no, well, indeed, nevertheless, however, I believe, in fact , of course, in my opinion, on the other hand, to tell the truth, on the contrary.
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
VonHagNDaz wrote:
Interrupters - Use commas to set off introductory words and expressions which interrupt the sentence. These expressions are often called parenthetical expressions because the words themselves are not essential to the sentence and could be placed in parentheses.
An interrupter, who's role is to interject an aside like this one, interupts the flow of the sentence. You used it incorrectly to disrupt a sentence that, without an interrupter like this one, had no break in its flow.
-
I never came to any of those conclusions. What I specifically said is that, given my personal experience, I will continue to oppose legalized marijuana. That's its use or restriction are subject to the democratic desires of the public. Personally, I believe its detrimental to the nation and to individuals. Your experience, being different than mine, might lead you to a different conclusion. That's where democracy comes into play. Of course, since potheads are too lazy to vote, I'll probably always win.
Red Stateler wrote:
I never came to any of those conclusions. What I specifically said is that, given my personal experience, I will continue to oppose legalized marijuana. That's its use or restriction are subject to the democratic desires of the public. Personally, I believe its detrimental to the nation and to individuals. Your experience, being different than mine, might lead you to a different conclusion. That's where democracy comes into play.
Good point. It's worth noting that others might come to a different conclusion though, and trying to understand why, and if warranted, incorporating that knowledge into your own thinking. That responsibility is mine, too, I don't mean to say only you should do it. Everyone should. To paraphrase - "The sign of an intelligent mind is the ability to hold an idea in one's mind without accepting it." - Aristotle
Red Stateler wrote:
Of course, since potheads are too lazy to vote, I'll probably always win.
You say that tongue in cheek (I think?) but there's actually some evidence that that is true..
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
I was not aware that we had a grammar Nazi in our midst.
I wasn't aware you were gonna take that personally... I'd have added "wearing oversized sunglasses" to the list. ;P Lighten up, duuude. It's a joke, see...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
I just cant win today... :(
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...