|
On April 22 2008 02:37 PsycHOTemplar wrote:Show nested quote +I mean a frequent drug user is basically deemed a criminal by law, do you think he would care about a higher chance of lung cancer in a cpl years or smth?? That's a weird set of a priorities you've got there. Personally, I would break the law over risking my health (thankfully in Canada I never have to, with things like Duress and Self-Defence). And really, if you've doing coke you've got a lot more to worry about than 'a higher chance of lung cancer,' buddy. Let's just say this would have been evident even if your post wasn't about drugs 
if my post wasnt about drugs it would have no information at all.. wtf?
And to my set of priorities... LOL! Newsflash: Whole societies rather risk their health for positive effects than go the healthy but uncomfortable way. If you have a car and drive it, your willing to take an even higher risk than a frequent user of cigarettes/alcohol! People play soccer or even rugby, JUST FOR FUN! Omg these people must be complete retards to risk their health for nothing else but a friggin game.
But yeah im sure ud rather break the law (which in general is always a healthy thing to do) than risk your health and step out of your cocoon with a laptop and internet connection.
I hope you dont have romanian ancestors or smth °_°
|
United States22883 Posts
I don't have an issue with people screwing up their own body, but it does annoy me when they lose control of themselves are start bothering the people around them. The 4/20 thing is a great example, because every single idiot had to tell me it was 4/20 and they were going to get high.
So smoking/drinking doesn't bug me, but most smokers/drinkers do bug me. Actually, drunk people don't bother me too much. Mostly just the potheads and normal smokers.
EDIT: I should include the reason I don't have issue with people fucking up their own lives is because it's another chance for me to get ahead.
|
I agree with you micro. As long as this is a "free" forum for discussion though, there isn't much that can be done about it. It wouldn't surprise me if the staff have talked about this and come to the conclussion that it is better to leave it as it is.
Edit: When it comes to the rest of the internet outside of TL, I think it more or less reflects what sites and chatrooms you visit and the communities they house.
|
United States24701 Posts
Fanatacist: very well put. Your post has gotten me thinking about the issue a bit more.
PsycoHOTemplar: For starters I think there's a lot of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man going on here. Let me clarify some things that have been misinterpreted so we are on the same page.
On April 22 2008 01:35 PsycHOTemplar wrote:
For TL;DR: He said
-I don't do recreational drugs
-I don't like that people do recreational drugs, but as long as they're private about it, fine
-I don't like the threads on TL that discuss recreational drug use (in a glamorous way) because it might make people not mature enough to make decisions about drugs yet, do drugs
-Some random Canadian bashing for no apparent reason, mixed with a dumb story about how I told a smoker he shouldn't say "brb, gonna have a smoke," and he told me to fuck off, because I don't realise I'm out of line if that's a stranger It wasn't random Canadian bashing. He called me a knob. What the hell is a knob? There are regional insults where I live, and I don't use them with people from Canada because they won't get it. Also, the guy wasn't a stranger. He was a regular in a channel we had both been in for over a year. Somehow this hadn't come up much before (I wonder why actually). When he puts a stupid emoticon next to his statement about how he's going to smoke, I'm going to say something, because it's just dumb. You also have to accept that there's a big disconnect between what he's accusing me of and what I actually did (unless you want to completely read into what my motivation was incorrectly, which many smokers do).
Learn to write more fucking concisely. The only reason I read the whole thing was because I wanted to see if you actually said anything.
Haha welcome to the blogs section. Everyone's writing typically comes down a notch here. Anyway the writing itself was fine.
My response: You're not going to stop people from being influenced by talk of drugs, just by hiding some posts on TL.net. The 'problem' is way more widespread than that, and if you don't want your kid doing drugs (since it's not really your business what someone else's kids do), you have to raise him or her that way. So that when he or she is offered recreational drugs, he or she will say "no thanks." + Show Spoiler [same thing basically repeated again] +Your solution is frankly just incredibly unrealistic and ineffective. Even if we made a section of this forum called "18+" or "Mature Audiences Only," do you think that would stop minors from reading it? It'd probably glorify it even more as what "mature" people do. There's no one in North America that didn't see an R rated movie before they were 18; the fact is you need to train kids how to interpret these things if you're so scared, not go psychotic and try to hide it from them all together.
First of all, I'm glad that you do acknowledge this as a problem. That earns a lot of respect from me, even if you don't want to value it. Second, I agree with you whole-heartedly about the responsibility being on the parents raising their children properly. Why do you think I'm not a drug user? I'd like to say even if I wasn't raised well I'd have the same values, but most likely it's because my parents did a damn good job about that. Thirdly, don't misinterpret my suggestion as a 'solution.' My goal is for the attitude as a whole to change, and no I don't have any immediate plan to make that happen. The one suggestion I did make was one possible short term solution to part of the problem, but by no means an attempt to suggest a long term solution.
I don't smoke, and I never will. The reason isn't because I never saw movies with the protagonist taking long satisfying drags on his cigarette or cigar. I did. The reason isn't because none of my friends smoke. They almost all do. The reason isn't because I don't see people smoking everyday. I do. What's the reason? I was raised with the ability to say "no thanks," and not feel left out. That's really all it is. I wish I could say more, but it's just a stupid argument. It starts at home, not on a fucking internet forum. EDIT: Ditto, holy fuck. I didn't think anyone else would actually read through this crap.
|
Christ, don't be so uptight. There is nothing wrong with having some drinks now and again. Everything can be enjoyed in moderation. O.o
|
United States24701 Posts
On April 22 2008 04:37 Goosey wrote:
Christ, don't be so uptight. There is nothing wrong with having some drinks now and again. Everything can be enjoyed in moderation. O.o
Who said anything to the contrary?
|
United States22883 Posts
Haha welcome to the blogs section. Everyone's writing typically comes down a notch here. Anyway the writing itself was fine. Eh, I disagree. As a long winder myself, I understand that the better sentence is always the concise one.
"If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter." - Cicero
|
United States24701 Posts
On April 22 2008 05:05 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +Haha welcome to the blogs section. Everyone's writing typically comes down a notch here. Anyway the writing itself was fine. Eh, I disagree. As a long winder myself, I understand that the better sentence is always the concise one. "If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter." - Cicero
Can you give me some examples from the OP?
|
On April 22 2008 01:28 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2008 01:21 Mindcrime wrote:
This site is not a parent and should not be expected to behave like a parent. Who the fuck let the lovechild of Nancy Reagan and Tipper Gore in here? Then screen the people who can join. You could make the argument that the internet should only be accessed by those with parental approval ANYWAY... but that doesn't mean the site isn't partly responsible for the consequences on those younger users who DO get on here. It's a bit of a sacrifice, but at least it's for a good cause.
No, tl is responsible for no such thing. People candidly express and discuss their own points of view and experiences here. What others choose to do with what they read here, if anything, is a choice that they alone must take responsibility for.
|
United States24701 Posts
On April 22 2008 05:18 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2008 01:28 micronesia wrote:On April 22 2008 01:21 Mindcrime wrote:
This site is not a parent and should not be expected to behave like a parent. Who the fuck let the lovechild of Nancy Reagan and Tipper Gore in here? Then screen the people who can join. You could make the argument that the internet should only be accessed by those with parental approval ANYWAY... but that doesn't mean the site isn't partly responsible for the consequences on those younger users who DO get on here. It's a bit of a sacrifice, but at least it's for a good cause. No, tl is responsible for no such thing. People candidly express and discuss their own points of view and experiences here. What others choose to do with what they read here, if anything, is a choice that they alone must take responsibility for.
I agree with you that I was taking it a bit too far making it sound like the site itself was responsible when I just mean the community as a whole, but I'm actually somewhat on the fence about what responsibility free discussion has (inherently) in protecting younger people. If what you say is going to make someone make a destructive decision, it really doesn't matter if you are technically justified in that action for an external reason... it's still good to try to avoid the issue. But, that's not really what I'm trying to argue about anyway.
|
I fail to see how the community has any such responsibility.
|
United States24701 Posts
On April 22 2008 05:47 Mindcrime wrote:
I fail to see how the community has any such responsibility.
To use an extreme example...
If a veteran forum member made a post: how to make a bomb with household materials, and the other users/admins were okay with it, and then a few hours later a 14 year old kid who was reading that thread blew himself up, then you could say that the person who needlessly posted instructions on how to make a bomb so easily, and the users/admins who were okay with it, were in part responsible for his death. Of course, the first level of responsibility is on the guardian of the kid, but I think it's irresponsible to say that there's nothing wrong with saying things that very well could have that kind of an affect without AT LEAST acknowledging the threat.
|
It doesn't. It's the parent's job to stop the kids, not the government or a website. Censorship is bullshit.
|
United States24701 Posts
On April 22 2008 05:52 Hawk wrote:
It doesn't. It's the parent's job to stop the kids, not the government or a website. Censorship is bullshit.
Suppose that everyone agrees you are 100% correct. Also suppose that in response, 50 forum users post recipes for bombs using household materials. Again suppose that a few hundred children around the world blow themselves up because their parents are guilty. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I was involved in that. Not because I didn't live up to my civic duty though.
|
I agree with PsychoTemplar and Goosey. If your really that annoyed by someone typing, "brb, going for a cigarrette" than I would say there is something wrong with you.
|
United States24701 Posts
On April 22 2008 05:59 SalvGG wrote:
I agree with PsychoTemplar and Goosey. If your really that annoyed by someone typing, "brb, going for a cigarrette" than I would say there is something wrong with you.
That's not what I was predominantly annoyed by. It was the way he made it silly. Keep in mind I'm not really 'that' annoyed either. It was just one example of a bigger issue.
|
On April 22 2008 00:29 micronesia wrote:Does the internet generally segregate people by age? To some extent, yes. But generally, communities such as this one have people ranging in age from young teen to adult. If the adults want to smoke/drink/etc on their own time with their own adult friends, I don't advise it personally but I don't have a problem with their decision. If they are open to discussion about it, I might try to convince them to cut back or stop that kind of behavior, but again it's ultimately up to them. What does bother me is when people feel free to discuss it. "I'm okay with weed/drugs/alcohol, so I'm going to make a thread about weed/drugs/alcohol, because it's okay to make a thread about weed/drugs/alcohol." Perhaps that would be true if you were surrounded by adults, because the other adults could either join in or freely ignore it without being influenced. But in a place where kids and teens may be, you should be much more careful about discussing potentially negative behaviors in such a positive light (discussing it as an 'okay' thing is generally glamorizing it to the less experienced readers). If there were a private society within teamliquid where only forum veterans could go, and entrance was generally screened, you could probably discuss these questionable issues more freely 
This is like the media arguement. People are blaming it for violence and teen pregnacy. In my point of view, it's just human nature to scapegoat a percieved problem on something. It's more efficience and easy. We've been killing each other and having sex at a very young age (Romeo and Juliet anyone? Mozart was also very fond of sex jokes and wrote a piece with the title "lick the arse") long before TV was invented. How about we suck it up and admit we're not as perfect as we think we are. There are worst stuff on TV news streaming at a constant rate than a starcraft forum. The last thing we should resort to is mods censoring the young users of tl.net which should be the parents job, which ultimate should still be the kids decisions.
|
A Straw Man argument is when I say your position is like another position, I don't bother to prove that premise, and then I argue against the position I said was like yours.
ex: Saying we should ban all positive conversation about recreational drugs is like saying you don't want people to be happy. People who don't want other people to be happy are fucking assholes. Ergo, you're an asshole. + Show Spoiler +Obviously a very weak argument. That's what a straw man argument is
I don't really recall doing anything like that. I simplified your horribly long winded rambling, but I think I did so accurately to your points.
It wasn't random Canadian bashing.
You're arguing that recreational drug use conversation has no place in the public eye. Talking about how some guy who happens to be Canadian insulted you doesn't actually have any impact on your argument. You didn't have to mention he was Canadian. You didn't have to mention he was using insults you didn't understand. They don't help you convince anyone of your position, they just take up space, and take attention away from whatever real arguments you do have. Do you see what I mean?
Again I agree with you about the 'raising your kids' idea. However, calling someone's blog 'crap' when it's in the upper quartile of writing on TL is showing your bias and immaturity (neither of which help with credibility).
It really isn't. Good writing is about a lot more than spelling and grammar
Also suppose that in response, 50 forum users post recipes for bombs using household materials. Again suppose that a few hundred children around the world blow themselves up because their parents are guilty. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I was involved in that. Not because I didn't live up to my civic duty though.
That's called Natural Selection. Honestly, society does enough to prevent people from being idiots. If they find especially clever ways to be stupid, it doesn't bother me that they kill themselves off before I ever have the displeasure of meeting them. + Show Spoiler +In any case, I don't think TL.net would keep 'how to make bomb' threads open, just because it's not the type of thing they need to be associated with. Not because they're concerned about the safety of impressionable retards, but because it's just fucking stupid. Send them to Totse.
|
United States24701 Posts
On April 22 2008 06:13 PsycHOTemplar wrote: A Straw Man argument is when I say your position is like another position, I don't bother to prove that premise, and then I argue against the position I said was like yours. ex: Saying we should ban all positive conversation about recreational drugs is like saying you don't want people to be happy. People who don't want other people to be happy are fucking assholes. Ergo, you're an asshole. + Show Spoiler +Obviously a very weak argument. That's what a straw man argument is I don't really recall doing anything like that. I simplified your horribly long winded rambling, but I think I did so accurately to your points. I think I can point out a few places where this occurred, but as you say below, it's besides the point of this discussion so there's no need.You're arguing that recreational drug use conversation has no place in the public eye. Talking about how some guy who happens to be Canadian insulted you doesn't actually have any impact on your argument. You didn't have to mention he was Canadian. You didn't have to mention he was using insults you didn't understand. They don't help you convince anyone of your position, they just take up space, and take attention away from whatever real arguments you do have. Do you see what I mean?
Show nested quote +Again I agree with you about the 'raising your kids' idea. However, calling someone's blog 'crap' when it's in the upper quartile of writing on TL is showing your bias and immaturity (neither of which help with credibility). It really isn't. Good writing is about a lot more than spelling and grammar
Show nested quote +Also suppose that in response, 50 forum users post recipes for bombs using household materials. Again suppose that a few hundred children around the world blow themselves up because their parents are guilty. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I was involved in that. Not because I didn't live up to my civic duty though. That's called Natural Selection. Honestly, society does enough to prevent people from being idiots. If they find especially clever ways to be stupid, it doesn't bother me that they kill themselves off before I ever have the displeasure of meeting them. + Show Spoiler +In any case, I don't think TL.net would keep 'how to make bomb' threads open, just because it's not the type of thing they need to be associated with. Not because they're concerned about the safety of impressionable retards, but because it's just fucking stupid. Send them to Totse. 
Edit: on second thought, blogs atm are actually pretty well written... I'm thinking back to when over half of them were total BS... but things are a bit better atm...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
life is not all that serious and dignified to guard with such zeal. i find the health craze itself more interesting an phenomenon than recreational drug use, which has always existed and is in fact understood more by the recreational and escapist part than the "health impact" that seem to be the way some people identify them now. if anything, health and normalcy is the new phenomenon, as far as being the dominant cultural context of such activities. not that i 'support' drug use etc, but i do nto support the attitude that this is really dignified serious business that deserves outrage and indignation.
it is not a matter of being uptight or loose. at least to me, i cannot value health and my own life so much to totally close my mind to the sensibility of the lsd user. it may be said that people grow out of this stage, but perhaps people spend forever try to recover it after the trauma of real life.
anyway, i didn't read your post or the thread. i just wrote this as comment for the peeps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
