TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Fascinating exctasy review and openess from the a big paper here
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Now you're doing it again. All I did was call your initial argument ideological, now suddenly I've made you out to be a repressive right-winged authoritarian. I'm not painting you, I'm literally just responding to your argument. You could have just agreed with me, told me were I was wrong or you could have rectified the statement. But you chose to go on the attack and throw a mini-tantrum about how I was misrepresenting you, thus making it far more personal then I ever intended it to be. To me this smells of rhetoric, although admittedly I'm guilty of the same by responding.

Okay i just found out how to get mdma (Turn caption on for English sub)


But i'm afraid of customs here in The Faroe Islands opening the package. Is it worth it?

quote:

Originally posted by Kylle But i'm afraid of customs here in The Faroe Islands opening the package. Is it worth it?

quote:

Originally posted by Kylle

Where have you been?

Oh, that's right, The Faroe Islands.

Late pass granted.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I know it's not the point of the article. I'm just picking up on these bits:

Ah, cool.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J To be more specific, this article paints a very rosy picture of the drug by only discussing the positives and completely avoiding any mention of the negatives. Taking MDMA multiple times in a week causes absolute carnage to your day-to-day life. I think it's probably a good thing that it remains a limited, special occasion drug. Unleash it upon a wider public without restrictions of price, access and fear of criminal repercussions and you just know there's a large demographic of consumptive, excessive people who'd probably go nuts and ruin their lives in record timing.

Although I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the health hazard that may come with the legalisation of any drug, how would that work?

Humans are susceptible to overdo pretty much everything. I wish I could remember the neurological problem that comes with people overdosing on multivitamins. It's become strangely common in the last few decades, all because people can't just stick to the recommended dosage.

That's why I'm for the legalisation of everything everywhere - for, let's say, a decade or so - to see what the results are. I doubt it can get any worse than what we see now.

quote:

Originally posted by Bierheld I'm not painting you, I'm literally just responding to your argument.

This statement means absolutely nothing. You are never "just" responding, you are always responding from a certain position whilst making certain assumptions about another position. I pointed out very clearly parts of my post that show you have misunderstood or misrepresented me, and demonstrated why my position does not fit in with the ideology you align it with. I'm not entirely sure how else I'm supposed to rectify your statements.

Bierheld: Although I don't think System-J is takes debates personally (and I say that as someone who's discussed pretty much everything with him), I believe I understand why he may come across as someone who does that. I can't talk about you because I don't think we've engaged in a long debate before (have we?).

Jack is probably the greatest analyser I've never met: He won't let you get away with bad arguments... or for that matter, any argument - no matter how good - unless you make your points explicit (because, more often than not, different people take different things for granted, and you may have something in mind that other people don't). He'd make a great advisor, or editor. He doesn't hedge because he's very confident, and if you're getting for granted something he doesn't, it often seems he's being picky and getting personal. And, if you want to show he's wrong, he won't budge unless you can show your argument is perfectly sound (which isn't a bad thing, I reckon).

In this case, here's a summary of what happened (I'm out of time here, but I hope it can still be helpful).

• Sys said MDMD use would skyrocket after its legalisation;
  
• You correctly pointed out that it didn't happen in the Netherlands and in Portugal;
  
• He pointed out that even if it's true about the Netherlands, that may not be true elsewhere - also, marijuana and MDMA are altogether different drugs;
  
• By this point, I can understand why you'd call it a day (because you're making a more general argument) even though he just won't agree with you (because he's being way more specific). Also, when you said his views were ideological, he pressed you so you could make that attack clearer as well - and then you started talking past one another, because you two clearly have different views in mind.

What in the fuck?

Lira needs some booty.

And so does System Jack.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J but it just totally kills my sex drive.

+1

absolutely shrivels my dick up.

quote:

Originally posted by OrangestO Lira needs some booty.

Definitely. Brb!

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On What in the fuck?

Loads of things. Including loads.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira text

Very well. Let us descend further into this never-ending trough of micro-analytic drivel.

First of all. Let me tell you something about me and my feelings regarding this incident.

Let's face it: I was bored, it happens. He probably was too. Apparently my imagination was malfunctioning at the time since the only means I could find to kill the miserable downtime was to get myself involved in what has repeatedly shown itself to be a tiresome and fruitless debate. A regrettable situation as I'm sure you'll understand.

Regardless. I was provoked by, what at the time at least seemed like a massive eyesore of conservative idealogical thinking spitting it's filth at my poor, poor, unsuspecting eyes.
Yes, someone was swearing in church and I felt like taking him on to at least try and get some reparations for the damage he caused to my mood and spirit, and let's not forget my eyes. Which still hurt bytheway.

---------------------
...Chapter one....
---------------------

I responded with a simple and honest observation regarding his argument. And let's get one thing in the clear here:

--------------------------------------------------------------------->
Regardless ..

Of personal views or orientation ...

We are still accountable for the fucking words we fucking write on this mother-of-jesus-the-holy-fucking-bastard-son--fucking internet forum. < pause >
--------------------------------------------------------------------->

Now that felt good. With this firmly planted in the back of our minds - there was enough swearing to achieve this I hope - we can now take a good and informed look at my first response in this thread.

[deep breath]

I started with the usual argument dissection. Like many a forum dweller I have seen this argument tirelessly come and go over the years, like that guy who sleeps in your garage and takes pictures of you when you sleep. I can dream every standpoint.
I was indeed just copy+pasting basic tried and proven arguments from somewhere in the wasteland that is my memory. He rightly pointed this out later on. I was aware of it, but let's be honest: Both him and myself weren't really interested in having this debate. I wanted to size him up for once as it's been the first time in years of pleasant but superficial exchanges that I got and felt like taking the opportunity.

What I did know from seeing him debate with others on this forum is that he is a hard-liner, very blunt in his wordings but he rarely seems personally affected by any of it, more a fan of the game I presume.

Knowing this I decided to focus on nothing but his words. After a few back and forths he (understandibly) grew tired of discussing the actual subject and started throwing me a curve ball.

[prepare yourself]

Now just look at what happened here:

quote:

And I don't know if you're just resorting to rote positions by accusing me of being "ideological" or suggesting I think drugs should just be plain "forbidden", but you really need to stop this crude misrepresentation of what I've actually written. There's a big difference between "forbidden" and "limited".

All of the sudden and completely out of the blue! Can you believe that? What happened?

What happened?

- What happened is that this man was either analysing me and assumed I was doing the same, or, more likely: He was planting bate. He wanted to get down and dirty, aiming for a strike between the lines. I was astonished by what he was able to conjure out of those few sentence-separating pixels. What is this? Did I suddenly hurt it's feelings? Laughable.

//////\\\\\\
Chapter 3:
\\\\\\//////
---------------------
...I responded...

---------------------


I did....


In fact I threw the ball right back at him. Aiming for his face now.
"If you're going to insist on bothering me about all this, why don't -you- explain to -me- what -you- meant with that initial comment eh?"
Or in other words: "KA-BANG! Choke on it bitch!"

...

Off course he refused to answer. In his mind I was still hooked and ready to be pulled in. Just a few more posts. And then. And then...
Job done! Kisses and goodbye.



He started to play games!

quote:

I used the word "limited" in the very previous sentence, the sentence that you originally quoted. You can progressively dice my point up into smaller and smaller chunks if you like, but I'm clearly not saying drugs should be outright "forbidden". And I think it's pretty rich that you accuse me of using a "useless and rhetorical approach to weakening [your] argument" when you're painting a ridiculous 2D cartoon of my position as right wing ideology. In case I didn't make it perfectly clear previously: I take drugs, and my opinion on the matter has been directly influenced by that experience. So shit-can your copy-paste reactive arguments against a fictional right wing position, because what I'm saying has more facets to it than that strawman you're used to kicking 'round the yard. It may be incomprehensible to you that someone might use drugs and yet not advocate outright legalisation of them, but here I am.

"I did things and stuff and this and somesuch. But you! YOU!"

I don't like it. And since he'd failed to give a proper explanation on his behaviour I was forced to make it up myself. That's what you get.
And you know what, I recognize crocodile tears when I see them. Even after what he did to me and my gorgeous eyes.

--------
epilogue
--------

Shortly after my last post here downtime was over and it was time to get on with my life. The unsatisfying exchange left a slightly sour taste, but I got through it. Thanks for asking by the way! I knew you cared.

quote:

Originally posted by Bierheld Thanks for asking by the way! I knew you cared.

I do, actually. And I must say I like your eloquence

Well, I can't speak on his behalf, so I guess all I can do now is wait for his input, but I hope this helps solve this misunderstanding and we can get down to business

You spend guys too way time much to trying yourself prove on right here.

quote:

Originally posted by OrangestO You spend guys too way time much to trying yourself prove on right here.

Actually, that's called "practising one's debating skills".

It's very important in life to be able to expose your ideas clearly, and get some valuable feedback for them. Not because you're right, but because you can't know it all by yourself, so it's great we can count on others for some valuable input.

Right you are, nigga my.

Voice your use. Counts debate where that's.

You drunk are, not are you?

quote:

What happened? What happened?

You failed to read what I'd written properly and ended up jumping to incorrect conclusions as a result, so I told you to pay more attention.

quote:

In fact I threw the ball right back at him. Aiming for his face now. "If you're going to insist on bothering me about all this, why don't -you- explain to -me- what -you- meant with that initial comment eh?"

Where exactly did you say anything remotely to this effect?

We were discussing your initial comment, the footnote you edited in to your very first post in this thread:

quote:

Unleash it upon a wider public without restrictions of price, access and fear of criminal repercussions and you just know there's a large demographic of consumptive, excessive people who'd probably go nuts and ruin their lives in record timing.

You can forgive me for seeing this as a hint towards your position?


Even so I largely ignored it apart from a snarly comment, which you chose to ignore as well. What I actually responded properly to was the prohibition argument. And it wasn't until after you started complaining about my position that I brought it up again.

For a few posts there was no issue, and then suddenly you brought it up again. Now, you were claiming I made you out to be a prohibitionist.
Am i right? CAN ANYONE CONFIRM?

quote:

And I don't know if you're just resorting to rote positions by accusing me of being "ideological" or suggesting I think drugs should just be plain "forbidden", but you really need to stop this crude misrepresentation of what I've actually written. There's a big difference between "forbidden" and "limited".

Ah, there we go!
I was suggesting you think it should be plain forbidden? No no, I was ignoring that part remember? Making a generalized argument, yo. This entire suggestion came from you, and to top that, you posted this:

quote:

It may be incomprehensible to you that someone might use drugs and yet not advocate outright legalisation of them, but here I am.

...At the very least you were throwing up a mightily confusing veil here!

Now, not once in this entire exchange did you resort to explaining your position, even though apparently it was very important to you.
Nah, you were too attracted to the stick you found and started beating me with it instead.
This was not in your best interest! It shows me that you didn't want to have a proper discussion but instead just wanted petty word wrestling. "No to "forbidden", but yes to "limited" Of course!

It's important!

Just found this on another forum:



Probably nothing new but it seems like it'll be entertaining, it will be like the inside job of drug docu's.


The publisher seems to hold some interesting ideas on website design at least.

quote:

Originally posted by Bierheld I was suggesting you think it should be plain forbidden?

quote:

Even if it doesn't hold true, there surely are far more effective strategies to combat drug abuse then to forbid and then call it a day.

Now, what I've actually done in this thread is expressed reservations about the idea that MDMA should be considered a substitution for alcohol, noted the specifics of the drug that lead me to those reservations, noted that the element of criminality is an important deterrent to large sections of society, and said that it's probably for the best if MDMA is treated as a "limited, special occasion" drug. At the same time I started the thread by generally agreeing with the article and hinting towards my own relationship with the drug. So there is clearly ambivalence in my position.

The reason I haven't unfolded a fully-formed and detailed position on the legalisation of drugs is twofold:

1. Having merely stated a few things that should clearly indicate my stance fits between the lines, I got a response from you which basically shipped me over to the hardline. Not only is this irritating, it discourages me from debating with you further because I don't like having to clarify myself every post because you lazily jump to cut-and-paste lines of debate. And also, for the record, getting irritated by someone misrepresenting you is not inherently "taking it personally", it is merely frustration at the lazy and assumptive arguments being invoked by the opposition.

2. As the aforementioned ambivalence should have indicated, I don't have a fully formed and detailed idea of government policy on the subject. I was expressing reservations, not offering the key to a totalising ideology. Which is why it's more annoying when you assume otherwise.

This thread is essentially me saying "Hmm, I like MDMA, but I'm not so sure it would work to legalise it and treat it the same way as alcohol" and you responding to that with literally "Ideological garbage!" And yet apparently I'm not allowed to get annoyed by that response unless I delivery a 200 page dossier on future initiatives regarding the legalisation of drugs? "Ideology" is such a loaded work to use, invoking all kinds of Marxist/Althusserian implications about interpolation and so on.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira it seems to point out MDMA is less threatening to public health than an already legalised substance (in this case, alcohol)

Unsurprising, considering the ridiculous threat to public health alcohol is. It's classified as a hard drug for a good reason, you know. That stuff's dangerous.

Well, there's no shame in being in the middle with this subject. Honestly none of us know what's going to happen if the legislation gets an overhaul. I can imagine you didn't feel much like arguing over what ifs and maybes and I do agree to an extent, which is why I usually don't like to get involved in debates like this.

There were a few things that surprised me though.
Firstly you are the only person I've ever debated with who seems to get so incredibly annoyed when I question certain things in their posts.
It is very easy to get pushed in a certain position when you're trying to spice up your arguments and you don't always get a perfect representation of what you stand for. This is not a big deal, if you accept this fact you can just rectify your mistakes when someone asks you about them.
You're so anal about these things it's like you cannot accept that you yourself may not have been very clear and instead choose to attack me for not having analysed your position correctly. Which again I didn't even care about.

Another thing is this ongoing quibble about the term ideology.
I've explained multiple times now that I only labelled that specific part of your first post as such, and I'm not going to quote it again because I've consistently done so from the very beginning and yet you still insist on me somehow having politicized the entire argument and also suddenly your own position.
This initially leads me to believe you're taking it personal. but I know better then that, since you seem to have no problems attacking others on far more trivial errors. So then I assume you're playing games in an attempt to get some sort of victory out of this.

Truth is I simply meant that with that statement you were falling into the same trap many political ideologies also tend to get stuck in, mainly making too many assumptions about complex material such as the behaviour of a large group of people. It is simply when ideas start to override empiricism. It's not a big fault either, it's simply how humans work.
Again, it's you not being capable of dealing with not having all the answers. You wouldn't get so annoyed if this weren't the case.

Thing is you can avoid all this by keeping it a generalized argument. It's really not even important what you personal standpoint is, and for a while we were doing fine just bouncing off arguments and I genuinely think you brought some interesting things to the equation. Even if you weren't sure of what it meant to the overall scheme it's still good to discuss these things, it doesn't always have to lead to a win-lose situation.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.