Plus, sometimes I just like to argue irregardless of my actual personal beliefs.
:smokin:
Printable View
Plus, sometimes I just like to argue irregardless of my actual personal beliefs.
:smokin:
So I ask: How can you judge the entire drug user population by just a few bad eggs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Alighieri
Practice what you preach, my brother.
Well Said!Quote:
Originally Posted by Its a Plant
I like chili...except sometimes it gives me the runsQuote:
Originally Posted by Billionfold
Eh? It was not acceptable for men to marry boys in Rome. I do not deny there was paedophilia, but I challenge you to prove to me that such marriages were promoted, or even occurred.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billionfold
Well, I knew if I provoked you enough with stone-cold ignorance you would eventually end up talking in circles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Alighieri
Let's review your first post, shall we?
So, in effect, you are guilty of the same thing you just accused me of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Alighieri
You grouped ALL drug users into one category; namely, that of despising anything Classical.
I grouped ALL Romans into one category; namely, that of attending rowdy orgies and engaging in acts of coitus and fellatio with young men.
I guess both of our faces should be red.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Its a Plant
Sorry, man. Wasn't trying to steal your idea...
I'll smoke one in your honor...
:smokin:
Peace!
Lol, it's all good man. Say what you gotta say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Binzhoubum
But that smoking thing wasn't a bad idea. I rather like smoking. :dance:
Forget about the homosexuality - it doesn't matter. Michaelangleo was one, and a great artist - as were many others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Alighieri
Be wary of anybody that claims to know the "truth". Stoicism is probably something that, if you study it enough, you will ultimately accept as an influence and aid to discipline, but not as a definitive "way". The truly creative souls are not dependent on systems, or drugs for that matter, to allow their minds to grow and improve. It's just a tool. High art can happen in spite of religion (or lack of), pain, ignorance, sickness, poverty, and other difficulties. When artists are creating something worthwhile, all the bullshit and theory goes out the window.
You are right about the marriage issue, at least from everything I have ever read or been taught regarding this subject; however, it WAS common for older men in the higher social classes to have a couple "boytoys" just in case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Alighieri
this thread is going to amuse me for quite some time even after Dante is banned.
Stoicism is flawed for many reasons...if I remember correctly from Epistemology class.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/#Log
Read the logic portion of that link....
Here is some more reading... :smokin:
Quote:
Flaws in Stoic thought
If all human events and actions are predetermined how are human freedoms and free will to be addressed? Universal causation is the bedrock of Stoic philosophy. If human attitudes and beliefs are within an individual's power or sphere of influence, is this truly congruent with Stoic determinism?
Robert L. Arrington illustrates the human attitude towards sickness as a foible in Stoic thought [14]. Illness can be a misfortune or an " indifference". The Stoics seem to hint that we should see illness as an "indifference" and a misfortune and then choose. If we apply universal causation in this matter there must be a cause for us to view illness one way or another. Arrington's interpretation of this dilemma in Stoic philosophy is illuminating,
"And if the causes that exist prior to our forming the attitude lead us to perceive the illness as misfortune, it is not possible for us to perceive it as a matter of indifference. If, on the contrary, the causes lead us to assume the attitude of indifference, then it becomes impossible for us to see the illness as misfortune. Either one of the sets of courses or the other must exist, from which it follows that it is either impossible for us to feel misfortune or impossible for us to feel indifference. If one of these options is impossible, the attitude we take is necessary in which case we really didn't have any options at all. And without options or choices, there is no thing as freedom or voluntary behavior. And, so it seems, our attitudes and beliefs are not in our power".
This argument regarding whether universal causation and determinism is consistent with a free will has been debated for over 20 centuries. Today there are philosophers on both sides of the issue.
Another flaw is the Stoic approach to evil. Stoics simply tell us it does not exist; events may seem evil, but they are not. Stoics teach that only the human perspective allows the interpretation that evil exists. Religions of the world, many philosophers, and people who have viewed and/or endured suffering cannot agree with the Stoics.
A further distortion in Stoic thought involves the idea that the life of virtue is the only "good" life. What about the "preferred" things that we as humans know make our lives better? What is wrong with "attaining the goals of impulse" [14]? There was a gradual progression in the evolution of later Stoic philosophy to allow the acceptance of the "preferable" things and this erosion of principle led to many attacks on Stoicism from other philosophical quarters.
And, finally, the Stoics felt the universe was rational and in unity. A divine thread ran through the cosmos connecting everything and everybody. Many philosophers cannot accept this concept. However, as we see the progression of this line of reasoning as it regards the study of the "string" theory in physics and the further work and modification of Einstein's views of relativity, we realize that there may be a mathematical basis to existence. The Stoics may be criticized about their "thread" through the cosmos, but when we discuss how time "bends" and describe gravity as "curved space" the critics of Stoicism may be tightrope-walking this same thread.
things are bound to get out of hand...someone insults him and then a flame war will start then things go crazy. It might not happen but things like this have happened in the past. So i suppose one could omit the banned partQuote:
Originally Posted by Billionfold
I hear that about arguing, Binzhouboum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Binzhoubum
Great line about starting off the day!
Since we are all clearly too stupid to talk to you?why bother.
A smart man can talk to other smart men.
A brilliant man focuses on his ideas and conveys them simply.
You are a smart man.
He is a Deist, and I pegged him for the things that your Stanford article criticizes the Stoics for*- and I also mentioned Einstein, who is credited with the theory of relativity, as mentioned in Stanford's essay on stoicism and it's incompatability with modern science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Binzhoubum
Geez, I'm smarter than I thought. :dance:
*post number 22 on this thread
The roman empire happens to be one of my favorite subjects in history, you ass
Your name is funny to me. Has anyone already pointed out that Dante was in favor of modernism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Alighieri
Where did you come up with this statement or information? Was a study conducted? Was it approved by the appropriate institutions and scholars?
:smokin:
First of all, how dare you use such a universal stereotype founded on nothing. Second of all, anti-intellectual? Are you kidding me? People use drugs to expand their minds, not close them. Reading The Odyssey stoned is one of the best experiences of my life.
And anyway, who the fuck are you to say classical is any better than modern? I mean you say we're unflinchingly stubborn in these opinions that you've designated for us and uet you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the artistic validity of Morrison or Lennon.
that was what i immediately thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Colonel
"Dante" (he's probably turnin' in his grave for that..)
im sorry mate, but ive never heard such a stupid sentence like this.
I hope your aim was to see how many people you could upset with jus one
thread b\c (an im taking all the responsability for saying this) you're filling this thread with bullshits.
you dunno what you're talking about an you're just giving some
nice low-cost-philosophy that nobody needs.
my piece of advise is get lost :thumbsup:
I like classic music
Black sabbath and Led Zeppelin and all that :stoned:
My mother is doing radiation treatment and having big issues with loss of appetite and nausia. She has been adamantly opposed to trying marijuana because, I believe, the social taboo associated with it and the idea that "she couldn't handle it" because she is so "sensitive". That is, the plant would somehow do more harm than good or she would freak out from the pschoactive effects. I imagine, from personal experience, that it is not as "serious" as some of the pain medication she had taken earlier...
Anyway, she will never smoke anything, and brownies are out of the question, but she has reluctantly agreed to try a tea, if I could make it and promise to make it very mild at first and go from there.
For what it is worth, there aren't any medications that have helped with appetite and anti-nausia medication runs about $40 for ONE pill. With insurance it's a little under half that, but it is very expensive regardless and not entirely effective. Other meds are cheaper but less effective than this particular one (Zofran).
I'm not a smoker myself, but have visited amsterdam and smoked on occasion when I lived in Germany. However, living in the particular area of the United States that I do, it is a fairly ubiquitous and easy to obtain. We have a medical-marijuana program in our state, but I'm not going to bother with it right now - though I will give them a donation in the future if I have some luck with this.
I volunteer at a local cable access station and have been asked to help the "legalize marijuana" show in the past. Such experience leads me to believe that there are some serious and significant benefits -- I just don't have any personal experience with marijuana used medicinally, except what I heard while crewing the show from guests or the occasional episode on tv.
Any advice on making a tea (is that plausable?) would be apprecaited. Also, if you have personal experience with medical marijuana used against nausia and loss of appetite I would be happy to hear about it. That said, I would be more interested in the skeptical side of things, since so far it seems that this is a very effective treatment -- however, people on a show about medical marijuana legalization are perhaps not entirely objective.
It may (?) not be cost effective compared to smoking or cooking, but that isn't an issue really considering the high cost of the alternative and my mom happens to be a rather stubborn lady, but very herbal medicine friendly (legal herbs that is) and drinks all sorts of other herbal teas -- so the mental barrier is MUCH easier to cross this way.
Thanks for all very much for your advice in advance...
The first couple paragraphs, with the quotation marks, seem to read very sarcastically - which was not my intention. I just wanted to illustrate that she's of a relatively sensitive constitution and has never smoked marijuana before. Also, I would like to make as mild a concoction as possible and go from there, depending on if there are some positive results.
I understand making tea is difficult, as high temperatures break down THC?
lol right on, but i like modern bands too...Quote:
Originally Posted by Az.
and to dante saying classical is any better than modern, is just another ass that is trying to pass off their opinion as fact.
dante, get the fuck of these boards if this is what you're gonna be doing here.
dante how much fuckin meth have u smoked today. this has to be the dumbest, biggest waste of time thread. i say delete this right now. DELETE
anyways, since i have nothing intellectual to say, i will say this:
DANTE YOU CAN SUCK MY BALLS
later
Well, here's a pot smoking intellectual that adores classical art and music, as well as modern art, and postmodern ideas.
ya don't see to many pot heads drivin around mercedez benz sport utility vehicals
Quote:
Originally Posted by 420mory
You should submit this question in the medical mj section of the board. I??m sure there would be lots of people who would be happy to help you out.
My sister used mj when she was receiving radiation after breast cancer. She was not a recreational smoker before radiation and is not a recreational smoker today. But she said that it did help her during treatment with the nausea/ appetite.
to dante: these verbal assaults toward you are mostly ill-founded. I see that you made an observation based on the most typical drug-user. As you've seen with your responses, there are exceptions to that type.
What I enjoy so much about this thread is that it got the attention of the sophisticated and intelligent ppl on these boards who usually don't care to comment in a less thought-inspiring forum. I'm sure most of them are quietly proud of their elevated minds and don't enjoy being classified with those who prefer more intellectually deficient, pacifying activities. For that reason, I'd make less general dictums if I did have something to say, that way there'd be room for the smart ones to feel they weren't the targets of accusation.
However, your first post hit home immediately to me; I'm always trying to talk about classical or sophisticated topics to people I party with, and they generally groove on it sufficiently, but at the end it usually seems like their attitude is "whatever, I just came here to party, not to learn and shit." And I'm thinking, "But that's what partying is to me. Am I just a total nerd for wanting to expand my mind in this way, despite being surrounded by the ignorant?"
You're a cool fucker dude, don't let these jackasses give u shit-the ignorant tend to get mad when they're confronted with something they don't understand
Lol, in all fairness, no one goes to parties to "expand their mind" like you described. Parties are parties. You're not a nerd for wanting to expand your mind at all, just don't go to a social setting like a party and expect people to open up to you about their views on 16th Century Roman culture. Now if everyone is tripping balls, then have at it! And just b/c people don't see and do things like you doesn't make them ignorant. Quit throwing that word out there so much. Use your intellect to "educate" others, not put them down. It's a gift. Share it! Everyone needs an open mind, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by burnable
Don't read into any of the above as an attack, please. Just throwing my 2 cents out there b/c I find your views on a lot of things very interesting. Either take it to heart or ignore it. Your call. Have a good day :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Its a Plant
I'm not offended. I only use the word 'ignorant' in a relative sense. Such as those people 'ignored' what i had to say and it makes them ignorant in that sense. I could just as easily say I was 'ignorant' because I was 'ignoring' the the appeal of a monster truck rally. In retrospect, though, I just shouldn't ever use the word because it is so common and so easily associated with an attempt to generalize and classify or label groups of people, which I don't like doing. thanx for your scrutiny
So true, it just boils down to one thing - People, and not necessarily drug users, but people in general, don't seem to like Intellectuals, if you look at History, you'll see it's littered with examples of persecution of intellectuals because people were either scared of jealous of them. The Soviet Union is one example, but anti-intellectualism is also very prevelant in modern day America as well, except it's done in a more trivial but effective way. People don't openly persecute intellectuals, they are just (with the help of pop culture) reduced to the status of 'geeks' and 'nerds'. This is why I blame the era of the 60's partly, and the music associated with it up until this point; because the 60's was the birth of fame associated with modern telecommunications, the whole world with the benefit of television, radio and now a host of other devices can see what pop culture dictates the ideal person to be like. He or she is not the scientist, or the historian, or the philosopher, but the rock star, the socialite and the film star.Quote:
Originally Posted by burnable
I'll back you up on that one. No one likes an intellectual until he/she does something to make life "easier". Or until someone invents a new way to blow something up. That usually garners a fair bit of attention.
I think people dislike intellectuals because they're threatened by them. Intellience is threatening, as is an openness to different ideas, philosophies, and cultures. Intellectualism a different mode of behavior and life than the average TV-watching, non-reading existence, and people who read and think on a deeper level also frequently behave differently, which sets them apart. Intelligence scares a lot of people. So they behave like jerks when confronted with it. Just look at our nation's president, who loves to poke jabs at out nation's so-called intellectual elite every chance he gets. He dislikes people who are smarter than he is because they threaten his simple good vs. evil, with-us-or-against us construct to life and world politics.
To my knowledge intellectuals are disliked is for more than just one reason. Often intellectuals are thought of, often wrongly as being pretentious or condescending towards others, this is in part to do with the elitist education system of this country. Because of this a classical education is usually linked with snobbery and elitism.
Possibly people could be jealous either at others intelligence or simply the lack of oppertunitie to recieve such an education. Others simply see intellectual activities as a waste of time with no real practical use. In part I suppose this could be due to a change from a more conservative and right wing to a more socialist or liberal global perspective especially in the west.
I personally prefer to take people on a person to person basis as generalisations whilst sometimes useful are nearly always wrong, ignore the irony.
Just my 2 pence.
i like pot and hate modern art and think music used to be better for the most part. also i dont adore john lennon. what the hell are you talking about dude
This made me laugh. :rasta:Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Enough Herb
Anyway... getting to my point, and it's just the one, I promise:
Descartes used to spend hours a day meditating inside a stove. He must've been smoking something. Admittedly, he wasn't strictly a Classical philosopher, but I'll bet Plato and Aristotle weren't adverse to the odd toke.
Man creates himself. Broaden your mind. 'Tis a plant. Etc.
It pretty cool that over a quarter century after he died reactionaries still despise John Lennon. Who has lasted that long. Nobody is like ??That (Jimi Hendrix, or Jerry Garcia or Martin Luther King or Abby Hoffman or Tim Leary or Syd Vicious (sp) or Ozzy Osborne) really brought in some change in perception for society.
Isn??t that what life is about? Changing things and being remembered for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Alighieri
You seem a little confused. Your saying that in the 60s ??He or she is not the scientist, or the historian, or the philosopher, but the rock star?, yet you ignore that these lines didn??t dissipate only cross.
In the sixties (and beyond to some point) rock stars became philosophers (John Lennon is actually a pretty good example of this) they also became historians, look at all the blues and root rocks influenced players (Clapton, The Band, Flying Burrito Brothers) and ancient Indian music influences (George Harrison, Brian Jones).
At the same time scientists started to become rock stars. More and more people knew James Watson and Francis Crick (who BTW tripped LSD a fair amount), Albert Einstein etc...