Jim Naseum
-
Posts
2026 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Jim Naseum
-
-
Overgeneralize? Just read what the nannies here have been saying in their scolds. It's all there, as I described.Well, of course you do! Liberty must sound like a totally foreign idea to someone like you! You can't comprehend people able to take responsibility and control of their own life, free of the nanny state demands. The concept of liberty sovereignty and freedom has been washed right out of your brains. I get it. I can sympathize. Don't worry, the State will take good care of you.
Methinks you overgeneralize, Sir. It is apparent that large, and growing larger, segments of our population are a bit tired of the nanny state and taking a stand.
Dave
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
Well, of course you do! Liberty must sound like a totally foreign idea to someone like you! You can't comprehend people able to take responsibility and control of their own life, free of the nanny state demands. The concept of liberty sovereignty and freedom has been washed right out of your brains. I get it. I can sympathize. Don't worry, the State will take good care of you.You mean you don't understand the passionate need for liberty.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
You mean you don't understand the passionate need for liberty.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
In your case I question your sanity.
Keith
>edited for misspell
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
2
-
-
It just became clear to me that most people here don't consider themselves to be adults. Or, certainly not free adults. After years of being wards of the nanny state, some of you obviously cannot even conceive of having the liberty to decide what's best for yourselves. You are actually repulsed by the idea of liberty! All things must be decided for you by the State. It seems positively outrageous and insane to you that a person might want the liberty to decide if a chemical is right for them. It astonishes you!
I think the youngers here have probably never in their life tasted liberty.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
4
-
-
When people recite their pet anecdotes about kids and drugs and crime, they inevitably assume drugs as the cause of crime. But we have raised millions of sociopaths who are going to commit crimes and do all sorts of other behaviors including drugs. It's not possible to always conclude that drugs were the cause of crime. It's every bit as likely that drugs reduced their criminal tendency. The root cause being sociopathy.
Further there are no kids here. This discussion is at least nominally between adults, who have every natural right to liberty of their mind and body.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
2
-
-
You mean you don't understand the passionate need for liberty.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
1
-
-
You promote job security through economic policy. I don't know why you are suggesting boycotting.
How do you promote job security by boycotting employers and doing things to jeopardize their existence?
We're not always making progress just because time is passing or TVs get bigger. Stability and security are unspoken demands of most societies. To the extent that there is no job security, there is no progress.
I realize pain and loss are very real and personal things, but I am not talking about that. I am talking about progress. Eventually, buggy-whip makers are going to have to come to grips with progress, the same as ferriers. I never said it's easy, but one thing for certain is it is progress... and who really doesn't want progress? Count me out of that group.The guy who just list his good job, and can't pay his mortgage, and has three kids and a wife to care for, thinks differently than, "oh, well, it's just progress. That's cool."
And when that is 75,000 guys in an area, and the grocer suffers and the barber and the tire shop and hardware store, they don't all say with a smile, "No fear! It's just progress!,"
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
Edit: The grand hypocrisy is often seen when the well-wishers want to see big companies like Microsoft take it on the chin. They feel for the little guy, but not the little guy's employer. Don't they realize the little guy depends on the health of the employer so he can get a paycheck and pay his mortgage?
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
Oh? Did they make soda illegal?
Why do you think using drugs is abusing ones self? For many people it's an enhancement to life.
We are also now being held communally accountable for the healthcare of us all. Those who abuse themselves and take risks now can rely upon others to pick the tab for the untoward consequences of those actions. What you do with your health matters to all of us.
It is a nice thought, but reality and the needs of a civilized society dictate otherwise. We do not allow people to beat their wives simply because what they do in the privacy of their homes is nobody's business. We have authority to go into people's homes to investigate cases of severe child abuse and neglect because what goes on in people's homes has most definitely been demonstrated to be everyone's business.Whatever happened to the principle of a man's (or woman's) house is their castle and the power of the state doesn't reach into another person's castle? It was the basis of the Fourth Amendment. Of course, that amendment was disregarded and made impotent with the WoD.
What someone chooses to do in their own home is none of my business.
I don't know where exactly the cut-off is supposed to be, and I do very much align with the legalization proponents on the basis of having more freedoms in one's own home. However, I don't think the adage helps articulate the distinction.
Naturally, people will come back with the next adage, "As long as they aren't hurting anybody else..." There is no doubt that drug abuse has been shown to be one of the number-one reasons for child abuse and neglect... or at least, the correlation is very strong.
It's not the easiest of issues. For example, if people ought to be able to use these particular drugs in their own homes, then, why not Xanax, Vicodin, Viagra, Symbicort and anything else they might want? Why should a doctor be in the way of their freedoms to take those drugs? What makes those drugs so special and worthy of regulation, as opposed to MJ and cocaine? If we open the flood gates, why not be consistent and open them all the way?
Secondly, if you are suggesting that everyone will have their life dictated for maximum health, there isn't even a word yet for that level of intrusion into liberty.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
Not yet. But if we can get a hold of those food chains and soda-makers and tell them they can't harm the people anymore...
Because I have been talking about illegal drugs.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
So obviously you have given little thought to the matters you are commenting on.
In actuality there's no debate.
In other words, you have no answer.
You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun? That's pretty sad. Are you not the same person who blames all others for your diet miseries? Have you any command of your faculties?
Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what?Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun?
What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior?
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
Drug use is not equal to drug abuse for most people. There are many purposes of drugs that are developmental for people. That raise their quality of life.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
1
-
-
Are you his handler?
You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun? That's pretty sad. Are you not the same person who blames all others for your diet miseries? Have you any command of your faculties?
Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what?Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun?
What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior?
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
The full quote is more than a question...
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
We are also now being held communally accountable for the healthcare of us all. Those who abuse themselves and take risks now can rely upon others to pick the tab for the untoward consequences of those actions. What you do with your health matters to all of us.Whatever happened to the principle of a man's (or woman's) house is their castle and the power of the state doesn't reach into another person's castle? It was the basis of the Fourth Amendment. Of course, that amendment was disregarded and made impotent with the WoD.
What someone chooses to do in their own home is none of my business.
It is a nice thought, but reality and the needs of a civilized society dictate otherwise. We do not allow people to beat their wives simply because what they do in the privacy of their homes is nobody's business. We have authority to go into people's homes to investigate cases of severe child abuse and neglect because what goes on in people's homes has most definitely been demonstrated to be everyone's business.
I don't know where exactly the cut-off is supposed to be, and I do very much align with the legalization proponents on the basis of having more freedoms in one's own home. However, I don't think the adage helps articulate the distinction.
Naturally, people will come back with the next adage, "As long as they aren't hurting anybody else..." There is no doubt that drug abuse has been shown to be one of the number-one reasons for child abuse and neglect... or at least, the correlation is very strong.
It's not the easiest of issues. For example, if people ought to be able to use these particular drugs in their own homes, then, why not Xanax, Vicodin, Viagra, Symbicort and anything else they might want? Why should a doctor be in the way of their freedoms to take those drugs? What makes those drugs so special and worthy of regulation, as opposed to MJ and cocaine? If we open the flood gates, why not be consistent and open them all the way?
Why do you think using drugs is abusing ones self? For many people it's an enhancement to life.
Secondly, if you are suggesting that everyone will have their life dictated for maximum health, there isn't even a word yet for that level of intrusion into liberty.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
I was not driving any "principle" in my prior post............. I merely posed a question.
You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun?
Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what?Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun?
What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior?
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
That's not what he suggested.
And I asked why you care about others using drugs?
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun?
Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what?Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun?
What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior?
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
That's not what he suggested.
What? He asked a question, and I asked why the answer mattered to him. Enough of the pointless interjections.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
In other words, you have no answer.
You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun? That's pretty sad. Are you not the same person who blames all others for your diet miseries? Have you any command of your faculties?
Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what?Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun?
What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior?
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
What is practical about relativity? Einstein was very playful, and Hawking can't even speak. It's hard to imagine how 'fanciful' and 'sensational' are being applied here. I realize those at subjective, but I've never heard anyone inside or outside of science use those words for Hawking.Does anyone have the actual paper related to the gravitational wave measurements? I'd like to learn more about their sensor configuration and all that.....the super nitty details, not the high level stuff.
Back to Hawking - I have always found a stark contrast between Hawking and Einstein....in that Hawking is very much sensationalized and focuses on the fanciful. Einstein seemed way more grounded in reality. Perhaps that's the way Hawking is portrayed by the media, but I simply don't consider the two anywhere close to being in the same category. Has Hawking presented us with anything practical? I honestly don't know (that wasn't a rhetorical question). A quick glance through Wikipedia makes it sounds like all of his ideas have been contradicted by others? And lots of debates and challenges about things?
Btw, don't forget that Einstein introduced us to the idea of "space-time" - which is to say the dimensions and time are one and the same (or intrinsically related). I've been meaning to sit down and run the special relativity mathematics to see what idea we can derive about how "fast" things were moving during a "Big Bang" or "Creation Event". The thing that surprises me is how similar the two mechanisms would manifest themselves. Why couldn't they be the same thing? I want to see what the different relativistic observation points would observe in terms of time elapsed. Perhaps someone has already conducted that analysis?
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
Rather than discuss semantics, I could summarize the above with a question:
Where are the equations Hawking has presented? What are the testable ideas? Literal question btw.
Here is an excerpt from Hawking demonstrating some further insight into my criticism:
"If a black hole was in contact with thermal radiation, it would absorb some of the radiation, but it would not give off any radiation, since by definition, a black hole was a region from which nothing could escape. If the thermal radiation was at a lower temperature than the black hole, the loss of entropy down the black hole, would be greater than the increase of horizon area.
This would be a violation of the generalized Second Law, that Bekenstein proposed. With hind sight, this should have suggested that black holes radiate. But no one, including Bekenstein and myself, thought anything could get out of a non rotating black hole."
This is a subtle thing, but note how he started with the assumption that "nothing could escape a black hole". He spent years intellectually masturbating through all sorts of theory because he started with an assumption. Assumptions themselves aren't a bad thing - and in fact often lead to much better intuition since it becomes easier to understand one sliver of a system. However, my criticism is how confidently he speaks on conclusions that are derived on assumptions based on non-existent observational data. Heck, Hawking himself claims that he prefers abstract thinking over observational analysis. I am very skeptical of guys with that kind of approach because I know how a logical conclusion can be entirely false because it was based on false assumptions. Some say that this is just the scientific process at play, but I think there is something more subtle and more fundamental here.
Would you base your fundamental understanding of the Universe on such an approach?
Holistically speaking, I disagree with a lot of Hawking's philosophical claims, and I get extremely skeptical when he openly takes pride in circular reasoning. I've never had a problem with the holistic philosophical perspectives of all the historical greats in science. Of course, I also disagree with a lot of your philosophical claims too
Makes discussion interesting though. Btw, I personally use love as my metric of trust. When two people smarter than me disagree on a topic, I usually side with the person that demonstrates a more loving demeanor, or really the conclusions that result in a more loving world (the two usually coincide). Hawking doesn't meet that criteria - not even close.Seriously? You're asking where are the equations? Start with his ground breaking work, "The large scale structure of space time," from the 70s.
Quote
The large scale structure of space-time, by S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1975, 391 + xi pp., $10.95 (paper), $28.50 (cloth).
This is an exciting and important volume since it is the first comprehensive presentation of a theory of cosmology taking into account the discoveries of the past quarter century in particle physics, radio astronomy, and differential topology. The astronomical universe or cosmos is examined within the framework of general relativity and global differential geometry. The exposi- tion is authoritative and painstaking, although in the search for logical completeness sometimes a bewildering tangle of alternatives and complexities is introduced (see, for instance, Chapter 6 on causal structure). The authors assume a basic knowledge of the physical aspects of general relativity theory, and write for the reader who is skilled in tensor calculus but who wishes to see the appropriate concepts defined in an intrinsic coordinate-free manner suitable for a global geometry.
Concerning the central thesis of their treatise, the authors write in the preface:
"The subject of this book is the structure of space-time on length scales from 10"13 cm, the radius of an elementary particle, up to 1028 cm, the radius of the universe. For reasons explained in Chapters 1 and 3, we base our treatment on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. This theory leads to two remarkable predictions about the universe: first, that the final fate of massive stars is to collapse behind an event horizon to form a 'black hole' which will contain a singularity; and secondly, that there is a singularity in our past which constitutes, in some sense, a beginning to the universe. Our discussion is principally aimed at developing these two results. They depend primarily on two areas of study: first, the theory of the behaviour of families of timelike and null curves in space-time, and secondly, the study of the nature of the various causal relations in any space-time."
Thus, for the authors, a mathematical model of the space-time universe consists of
(i) A differentiable 4-manifold 9H (connected, Hausdorff, paracompact, C00-manifold without boundary)—this represents the amorphous qualitative structure of the cosmos.
(ii) A Lorentz metric tensor g, with components gab(x) in any local chart (xa),a = 1, 2, 3, 4, of 911 (a symmetric covariant 2-tensor field of class C, r > 2, with the relativistic signature 2, or ( + + H— ))—this represents the special relativistic or Minkowski structure on each tangent space Tp of 9H, and permits the construction of spacelike and nonspacelike (timelike and lightlike or null) tangent vectors in Tp. The nonspacelike vectors fill the lightcones in each Tp and these define the basic causal structure on 91L. Timelike and null geodesies define the world-trajectories or histories of free particles and light rays."
The entire review can be located from Google here: https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.bams/1183538326
Read the work, and form a critique that shows it's trivial or fanciful.
There was only one Einstein. I haven't claimed he outstripped Einstein. But like Einstein, primary science rarely has day to day practicality, which was you first challenge.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk -
Good! That's exactly the choice you should be free to make.
I have been on some of those, and i ma not going back to them as the side effects are just too much to deal with. My wife and i sometimes watch the prescription warnings on tv commercials, and to be honest a huge amount of the time the side effects are much worse than the original problem. I'll stick with my vaping weed, and zero side effects.
"Ineffective mental crutch." Such as what?
And this is the key........ to fully dissect the properties of the drug so that we can understand how to best apply it contributions. There is a good and a dark side to recreational use of psychoactive drugs. When used with others, socially they can add positive dimensions to the overall experiences. When used alone to recede from troubles or stresses they become ineffective mental crutches that do not in any manner contribute to solving problems. I believe the world is at a point where advancement depends upon serious participation. Future generations have a sizable learning task ahead of them requiring mental acuity - not mental retardation. I suppose those who survive the wash will rise to the top. But will there be hordes of the lesser accomplished needing to be supported by those who succeed? Already we witness social stratification and its consequences. Tough and complex questions, really.
But that's just the thing. They need to reschedule MJ so proper research, at our best research hospitals and universities, with peer review, can take place. Our bodies are rife with cannabinoid receptors, they do modulate things (mood, pain, etc), and it demands proper study.On the medicinal side, benefits are way beyond anecdotal, as it's not just about getting high and participating with Jazz anymore.
We have many millions of people on prescription psychoactives right now. Is that what you refer to? Paxil, Zanax, etc.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
1
-
-
We're not always making progress just because time is passing or TVs get bigger. Stability and security are unspoken demands of most societies. To the extent that there is no job security, there is no progress.The guy who just list his good job, and can't pay his mortgage, and has three kids and a wife to care for, thinks differently than, "oh, well, it's just progress. That's cool."
And when that is 75,000 guys in an area, and the grocer suffers and the barber and the tire shop and hardware store, they don't all say with a smile, "No fear! It's just progress!,"
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
I realize pain and loss are very real and personal things, but I am not talking about that. I am talking about progress. Eventually, buggy-whip makers are going to have to come to grips with progress, the same as ferriers. I never said it's easy, but one thing for certain is it is progress... and who really doesn't want progress? Count me out of that group.
Edit: The grand hypocrisy is often seen when the well-wishers want to see big companies like Microsoft take it on the chin. They feel for the little guy, but not the little guy's employer. Don't they realize the little guy depends on the health of the employer so he can get a paycheck and pay his mortgage?
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun?
Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what?
What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior?
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
1
-
-
Whether it is harmless or harmful is going to be based on thousands of assumptions about what constitutes harm.Not a thing in their that isn't consistent with MJ history and science. What is inaccurate and one-sided?
That there are no harmful effects whatsoever of marijuana use.
Don't get me wrong, the political history of that was full of crazy propaganda and lies, but it's not completely harmless the way the article implies.....especially for younger people. Brain development in the early years is certainly impacted, and it goes until an average age of 25. It's related to the same chemical changes that causes 25 year old males to start thinking about consequences that allows insurance rates to go down.
A better question is what principle you apply to get involved in what others do? Sugar is harmful under many definitions. Sugar is killing more people in the usa than mj.
Are you adopting some principle of regulation of behavior? What's the principle?
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
1
-
-
So, what theoretical power are you wanting to invoke over others? What's the basis for your imposition on what other people choose to use in the way of drugs?
I'd say what we're mixing now is marginal to unravelling. Add a new layer of inebriate fog into the blend and who knows what'll occur. IMHO we need to be adopting behaviors understood to enhance the human condition and I remain unconvinced that easy access to MJ is such a swell idea. Imagine visiting the grand kids and finding them sloppy stoned glued to their electronic games - week in and week out. I dunno - I s'pose if they churn out good grades, can be articulate and informed, objective, etc.......... that being in a chronic state of giggly jello makes little difference.Future generations have a sizable learning task ahead of them requiring mental acuity - not mental retardation. I suppose those who survive the wash will rise to the top. But will there be hordes of the lesser accomplished needing to be supported by those who succeed? Already we witness social stratification and its consequences. Tough and complex questions, really.
Tough, but not new at all. Social strata has always existed and always will. If a comfortable life is any indicator of using the right ingredients in the proper amounts, I'd say whatever we're mixing right now is a pretty good recipe.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
What's the War on Drugs that you think is proper?...
PS - While I speak as a moderator only for myself, I consider this to be a perfectly good topic. PLEASE keep politics out of it so it can remain a discussion of great interest to the nation as a whole.
There should not be finger pointing and blame. Unless I understand incorrectly, that is what you are talking about. What is done is done, and we can most definitely look at what science is saying and what other countries are having success with. Our government does need to be a part of the conversation, because it is them who have gone down the wrong path. The War on Drugs is a failure as has been defined by the government. Repeating the same behavior and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. There are many governments who have been successfully combating addiction while not empowering the drug underground. They are not locking up the young underprivileged and minorities as we are. This is a social win for them, and makes us look cruel and a bit silly.
Perhaps we can still have a war on drugs, but it involves some of the things we have discussed. A war more on the reasons for drug abuse. Notice I called it drug abuse and not drug use. IMO, there is a big difference!
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
"Ineffective mental crutch." Such as what?
And this is the key........ to fully dissect the properties of the drug so that we can understand how to best apply it contributions. There is a good and a dark side to recreational use of psychoactive drugs. When used with others, socially they can add positive dimensions to the overall experiences. When used alone to recede from troubles or stresses they become ineffective mental crutches that do not in any manner contribute to solving problems. I believe the world is at a point where advancement depends upon serious participation. Future generations have a sizable learning task ahead of them requiring mental acuity - not mental retardation. I suppose those who survive the wash will rise to the top. But will there be hordes of the lesser accomplished needing to be supported by those who succeed? Already we witness social stratification and its consequences. Tough and complex questions, really.On the medicinal side, benefits are way beyond anecdotal, as it's not just about getting high and participating with Jazz anymore.
But that's just the thing. They need to reschedule MJ so proper research, at our best research hospitals and universities, with peer review, can take place. Our bodies are rife with cannabinoid receptors, they do modulate things (mood, pain, etc), and it demands proper study.
We have many millions of people on prescription psychoactives right now. Is that what you refer to? Paxil, Zanax, etc.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
1
-
-
Sure, if they had any concern for the interests of citizens. But their interest lies with other allegiance.This is the kind of discussion the government should be having. Give the right people the tools they need to do their job. Weaken the underground by lifting the bans. Strengthen our mental health professionals by giving them the tools and the money to combat the problems effectively.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
The guy who just list his good job, and can't pay his mortgage, and has three kids and a wife to care for, thinks differently than, "oh, well, it's just progress. That's cool."
And when that is 75,000 guys in an area, and the grocer suffers and the barber and the tire shop and hardware store, they don't all say with a smile, "No fear! It's just progress!,"
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
And, they want these drugs in their arsenal. Many of them are very frustrated by not having access to psychedelics too.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
Makes discussion interesting though. Btw, I personally use love as my metric of trust. When two people smarter than me disagree on a topic, I usually side with the person that demonstrates a more loving demeanor, or really the conclusions that result in a more loving world (the two usually coincide). Hawking doesn't meet that criteria - not even close.
Why Is Marijuana Banned? The Real Reasons Are Worse Than You Think
in Lounge
Posted
"Gateway drug" is nothing more than an artificial, political claim by the nannies.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk