HorrorMovieFans.com

Foo wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:Vegans do think they are better than everyone else

They might be right! Vegans do tend to be very healthy.

healthier does not make you a better person. just a more healthy one.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: If someone has the ability to cope with the ups and downs of life, without the use of drugs, would you not say they are better emotionally than someone who needs drugs to handle life?

that could be. but it isn't necessarily. i don't do drugs. i don't think i'm healthier emotionally than head, for instance. i don't drink. i don't think i'm healthier emotionally than reign or tigg.

It is not like, "you drink, you are the devil!", it is combating the current narrative that all these substances are ok in such regular doses.

There are people who smoke weed nearly every day who thinks that is normal. Or people constantly on painkillers or mood alterers who think that is just the way life is.

People no longer seem to understand what abuse is.

for a lot of people, it does seem to be. i don't do drugs. you do? i can talk down to you. you're beneath me.

encourage people to not abuse substances, especially if they are hurting themselves with it, or hurting others. i'm all for that, but you have to be careful in the way that you try to do it. preaching at people, ridiculing people, or guilting them is not the way to go. but it seems to be the default position for people looking to do that.

Because treating everyone like they are little pussies for the last 30 years has been going so well?

Maybe we need to tell people the truth instead of always telling them it is not their fault. I know people who repeatedly lose or cannot get jobs from places that are always hiring. Everyone tells them bullshit about how the employer is really missing out on a great person and all this other feel good malarkey.

Maybe saying, "listen fuck-stick, a nutless monkey could do those jobs and you keep fucking up. The problem is you. Clean up and get off the drugs, shave, get a haircut, act like you can move faster than a snail. Be energetic and a problem solver instead of the guy who leans against the wall playing pocket pool at every opportunity.".

Or instead of acting like their chemical dependence is understandable, tell them they are fucking up their lives and letting the next high be more important than their family.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Most likely if you're in the business of preaching your lifestyle choices to others in a non-religious context, your life sucks. Simple as that.

In a society full of people who cannot make choices that put themselves in a position to be self sufficient, we need those people.

you can be self sufficient and smoke pot or drink beer. you can be successful and smoke pot or drink beer. (or other substances as well)

You can also do that with an OxyContin or heroin addiction. Again, use versus abuse and the length of time matters.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: If someone has the ability to cope with the ups and downs of life, without the use of drugs, would you not say they are better emotionally than someone who needs drugs to handle life?

that could be. but it isn't necessarily. i don't do drugs. i don't think i'm healthier emotionally than head, for instance. i don't drink. i don't think i'm healthier emotionally than reign or tigg.

It is not like, "you drink, you are the devil!", it is combating the current narrative that all these substances are ok in such regular doses.

There are people who smoke weed nearly every day who thinks that is normal. Or people constantly on painkillers or mood alterers who think that is just the way life is.

People no longer seem to understand what abuse is.

for a lot of people, it does seem to be. i don't do drugs. you do? i can talk down to you. you're beneath me.

encourage people to not abuse substances, especially if they are hurting themselves with it, or hurting others. i'm all for that, but you have to be careful in the way that you try to do it. preaching at people, ridiculing people, or guilting them is not the way to go. but it seems to be the default position for people looking to do that.

Because treating everyone like they are little pussies for the last 30 years has been going so well?

Maybe we need to tell people the truth instead of always telling them it is not their fault. I know people who repeatedly lose or cannot get jobs from places that are always hiring. Everyone tells them bullshit about how the employer is really missing out on a great person and all this other feel good malarkey.

Maybe saying, "listen fuck-stick, a nutless monkey could do those jobs and you keep fucking up. The problem is you. Clean up and get off the drugs, shave, get a haircut, act like you can move faster than a snail. Be energetic and a problem solver instead of the guy who leans against the wall playing pocket pool at every opportunity.".

Or instead of acting like their chemical dependence is understandable, tell them they are fucking up their lives and letting the next high be more important than their family.

none of what you're arguing here is about drug use specifically, until the last point. you're conflating being unproductive, with using a substance, when the two are not tied to one another.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Most likely if you're in the business of preaching your lifestyle choices to others in a non-religious context, your life sucks. Simple as that.

In a society full of people who cannot make choices that put themselves in a position to be self sufficient, we need those people.

you can be self sufficient and smoke pot or drink beer. you can be successful and smoke pot or drink beer. (or other substances as well)

You can also do that with an OxyContin or heroin addiction. Again, use versus abuse and the length of time matters.

yeah, that is why i said "or other substances".

am i a better person, than you because i do not have an addiction to food? am i a better person than head because i do not use pot? am i a better person than seb because i don't drink coke? (much) do you not see how this argument, the way you're trying to frame it, is flawed?

zombie wrote:am i a better person, than you because i do not have an addiction to food? am i a better person than head because i do not use pot? am i a better person than seb because i don't drink coke? (much) do you not see how this argument, the way you're trying to frame it, is flawed?

Literally the only person making one aspect of a person into a defining characteristic is you. Things are intertwined, however. At the point where my food addiction makes me bed ridden, for example, it starts to become more clear.

It is certainly possible you are a better person than anyone you mentioned.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:am i a better person, than you because i do not have an addiction to food? am i a better person than head because i do not use pot? am i a better person than seb because i don't drink coke? (much) do you not see how this argument, the way you're trying to frame it, is flawed?

Literally the only person making one aspect of a person into a defining characteristic is you. Things are intertwined, however. At the point where my food addiction makes me bed ridden, for example, it starts to become more clear.

It is certainly possible you are a better person than anyone you mentioned.

is the point of this argument not to infer that a person that does not use a substance is better than a person who does?

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:am i a better person, than you because i do not have an addiction to food? am i a better person than head because i do not use pot? am i a better person than seb because i don't drink coke? (much) do you not see how this argument, the way you're trying to frame it, is flawed?

Literally the only person making one aspect of a person into a defining characteristic is you. Things are intertwined, however. At the point where my food addiction makes me bed ridden, for example, it starts to become more clear.

It is certainly possible you are a better person than anyone you mentioned.

is the point of this argument not to infer that a person that does not use a substance is better than a person who does?

The point is that we have become a culture of drug abuse.

Do you think drug abuse is a big problem? Because I am getting the idea you don't believe that to be the case.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:am i a better person, than you because i do not have an addiction to food? am i a better person than head because i do not use pot? am i a better person than seb because i don't drink coke? (much) do you not see how this argument, the way you're trying to frame it, is flawed?

Literally the only person making one aspect of a person into a defining characteristic is you. Things are intertwined, however. At the point where my food addiction makes me bed ridden, for example, it starts to become more clear.

It is certainly possible you are a better person than anyone you mentioned.

is the point of this argument not to infer that a person that does not use a substance is better than a person who does?

The point is that we have become a culture of drug abuse.

Do you think drug abuse is a big problem? Because I am getting the idea you don't believe that to be the case.

i make a distinction between use and abuse. that's all.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:am i a better person, than you because i do not have an addiction to food? am i a better person than head because i do not use pot? am i a better person than seb because i don't drink coke? (much) do you not see how this argument, the way you're trying to frame it, is flawed?

Literally the only person making one aspect of a person into a defining characteristic is you. Things are intertwined, however. At the point where my food addiction makes me bed ridden, for example, it starts to become more clear.

It is certainly possible you are a better person than anyone you mentioned.

is the point of this argument not to infer that a person that does not use a substance is better than a person who does?

The point is that we have become a culture of drug abuse.

Do you think drug abuse is a big problem? Because I am getting the idea you don't believe that to be the case.

i make a distinction between use and abuse. that's all.

If someone uses almost daily, are they a user or abuser?

We should of all stayed Puritans

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:am i a better person, than you because i do not have an addiction to food? am i a better person than head because i do not use pot? am i a better person than seb because i don't drink coke? (much) do you not see how this argument, the way you're trying to frame it, is flawed?

Literally the only person making one aspect of a person into a defining characteristic is you. Things are intertwined, however. At the point where my food addiction makes me bed ridden, for example, it starts to become more clear.

It is certainly possible you are a better person than anyone you mentioned.

is the point of this argument not to infer that a person that does not use a substance is better than a person who does?

The point is that we have become a culture of drug abuse.

Do you think drug abuse is a big problem? Because I am getting the idea you don't believe that to be the case.

i make a distinction between use and abuse. that's all.

If someone uses almost daily, are they a user or abuser?

that depends on what substance you're talking about. how much of that substance they are using per day. and also how much that substance affects their ability to live their life in a productive way.

also.. how productive do they have to be, for you to consider them to be a good person is another question to be asked.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:am i a better person, than you because i do not have an addiction to food? am i a better person than head because i do not use pot? am i a better person than seb because i don't drink coke? (much) do you not see how this argument, the way you're trying to frame it, is flawed?

Literally the only person making one aspect of a person into a defining characteristic is you. Things are intertwined, however. At the point where my food addiction makes me bed ridden, for example, it starts to become more clear.

It is certainly possible you are a better person than anyone you mentioned.

is the point of this argument not to infer that a person that does not use a substance is better than a person who does?

The point is that we have become a culture of drug abuse.

Do you think drug abuse is a big problem? Because I am getting the idea you don't believe that to be the case.

i make a distinction between use and abuse. that's all.

If someone uses almost daily, are they a user or abuser?

that depends on what substance you're talking about. how much of that substance they are using per day. and also how much that substance affects their ability to live their life in a productive way.

also.. how productive do they have to be, for you to consider them to be a good person is another question to be asked.

If someone uses marijuana almost every day, in any quantity, are they a user or an abuser?

Tiggnutz wrote:We should of all stayed Puritans

There are underrated aspects of that.

Foo wrote:
If someone uses marijuana almost every day, in any quantity, are they a user or an abuser?

without any context to go by, other than that... i'm gonna have to say that they are a user.

how do you define abuse? so that i have a clearer idea. and thanks for not avoiding my questions, like you always point it out when i do to you.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Most likely if you're in the business of preaching your lifestyle choices to others in a non-religious context, your life sucks. Simple as that.

In a society full of people who cannot make choices that put themselves in a position to be self sufficient, we need those people.

you can be self sufficient and smoke pot or drink beer. you can be successful and smoke pot or drink beer. (or other substances as well)

You can also do that with an OxyContin or heroin addiction. Again, use versus abuse and the length of time matters.

If you have a legit heroin or Oxy addiction, it's nearly impossible to be productive unless you work in artistic fields.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
If someone uses marijuana almost every day, in any quantity, are they a user or an abuser?

without any context to go by, other than that... i'm gonna have to say that they are a user.

how do you define abuse? so that i have a clearer idea. and thanks for not avoiding my questions, like you always point it out when i do to you.

Abuse is use in light of consequences. Abuse is use to escape reality.

"Think about the past causes depression. Thinking about the future causes anxiety. Substance X lets me live in the moment."

That is paraphrasing, but I hope you see the issue with doing that frequently.

Foo wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:We should of all stayed Puritans

There are underrated aspects of that.

puritanism, as it has been represented to me, seems pretty terrible.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:We should of all stayed Puritans

There are underrated aspects of that.

puritanism, as it has been represented to me, seems pretty terrible.

Puritans brought wide spread literacy to the west. They also had strong views about the value of good sex between a husband and wife.