|
Fascinating exctasy review and openess from the a big paper here (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by OrangestO
Lira needs some booty. |
Definitely. Brb!
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
What in the ? |
Loads of things. Including loads. |
|
|
| Bierheld |
| 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 ing words we ing write on this mother-of-jesus-the-holy-ing-bastard-son--ing 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 -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. |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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 :p
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 :) |
|
|
| OrangestO |
| You spend guys too way time much to trying yourself prove on right here. |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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. |
|
|
| OrangestO |
| Right you are, nigga my. |
|
|
| OrangestO |
| Voice your use. Counts debate where that's. |
|
|
| Lira |
| You drunk are, not are you? :p |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| 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? |
|
|
| Bierheld |
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! |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
