moviefreakedmind

Why are people taking out 100,000 dollars in debt to go to this school?

suspiciouscoffee said:

That’s pronounce Sesevenen right?

I was birthed in a Sesevenen section.

TV’s Frink said:

“Whatever.”

Quit trying to pick a fight. Knock it off or I’m going to lose control.

ChainsawAsh said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

chyron8472 said:

There is no amount of meth or heroine or cocaine or LSD (et al.) that does not ruin lives.

As LSD isn’t addictive, I don’t see how it can ruin lives.

The biggest risk with LSD use is the potential to cause an earlier onset of mental illnesses like schizophrenia, but it won’t make someone schizophrenic who wasn’t already going to develop the condition, just make it manifest earlier.

I think it also increases the severity of it, but legal drugs can do that too.

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Alcohol ruins more lives than hard drugs do.

Citation needed.

Per population, yes, but per user, most certainly not.

Drugs ruin lives. There is no amount of meth or heroine or cocaine or LSD (et al.) that does not ruin lives. Alcoholism ruins more families, yes, but because there are more alcoholics. Legalizing drugs would not make drugs ruin fewer lives.

It would make prisons ruin fewer lives, and the regulation would make it safer. The United States does pretend to be a free country after all.

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

if hard drugs are legal, do you think that should or should not be a basis for deciding on child custody between divorced parents?

Of course it should.

Should evidence of hard drug use justify social services going into a home to at least temporarily take away children?

Of course it should.

Basically, are you going to pretend that hard drug use by parents doesn’t pose an inherent threat to children?

Of course it does.

You know what else does? Alcoholism.

I think hard drug use poses a far greater threat to children. If I see a parent buying a bottle of hard liquor versus buying meth, I’m going to have a very different view of that, as it seems you would also. If hard drugs have a lessened stigma and are more readily available, more people are going to use. Parents addicted to hard drugs may let their children be exploited in addition to neglecting them. For this increased negative possibility, the benefit is what? Greater freedom for people to mess their lives up as drug addicts?

This strikes a nerve with me. You chose meth because it’s the obvious worst example, but the amount of children abused by drunken parents is staggering. All of the crap you listed is common in the homes of children living with parents that are severe alcoholics. For you to downplay it sickens me.

EDIT: Basically, I’m tired of this hypocrisy. Alcohol ruins more lives than hard drugs do. If you or anyone else are going to pretend to care about drug-users and the children (somebody think of the children!) then you have to be in favor of criminalizing alcohol too. If you’re not, then you’re a hypocrite.

+1

-2

I don’t buy the argument that if alcohol is legal then meth should be too because both can hurt children. I’m certainly not the one downplaying harm, righteous mfm.

I’m not righteous. It just hits close to home for me because it was a family issue for me.

There is no hypocrisy in seeing a difference between hard drugs and alcohol, I’m just not a crazed absolutist. It’s true that addictions of any kind can ruin families and hurt children. You want meth legal and that’s why I used it as an example. You don’t want to draw a line even at the worst drug one might think of. A drug that, unlike alcohol, is addicting to anyone who uses it. Making judgments about where to draw lines is not hypocrisy, it’s the application of sense.

Well, obviously everything will be heavily regulated, much like cigarettes and alcohol are. That means sellers can’t advertise, or sell to anyone under 21 etc. etc.

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ve been told I look like a ghost. I took it as a compliment because I’m a huge Scream fan.

WYSHS

That’s funny, because I actually am. My username is stolen from Scream, ya know.

SilverWook said:

I was surprised to see TFA airing on TNT this evening. I would think they would have promoted the heck out of it. I’m old enough to recall when it took a feature film three years to reach network tv.

TFA is almost three years old!

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

if hard drugs are legal, do you think that should or should not be a basis for deciding on child custody between divorced parents?

Of course it should.

Should evidence of hard drug use justify social services going into a home to at least temporarily take away children?

Of course it should.

Basically, are you going to pretend that hard drug use by parents doesn’t pose an inherent threat to children?

Of course it does.

You know what else does? Alcoholism.

I think hard drug use poses a far greater threat to children. If I see a parent buying a bottle of hard liquor versus buying meth, I’m going to have a very different view of that, as it seems you would also. If hard drugs have a lessened stigma and are more readily available, more people are going to use. Parents addicted to hard drugs may let their children be exploited in addition to neglecting them. For this increased negative possibility, the benefit is what? Greater freedom for people to mess their lives up as drug addicts?

This strikes a nerve with me. You chose meth because it’s the obvious worst example, but the amount of children abused by drunken parents is staggering. All of the crap you listed is common in the homes of children living with parents that are severe alcoholics. For you to downplay it sickens me.

EDIT: Basically, I’m tired of this hypocrisy. Alcohol ruins more lives than hard drugs do. If you or anyone else are going to pretend to care about drug-users and the children (somebody think of the children!) then you have to be in favor of criminalizing alcohol too. If you’re not, then you’re a hypocrite.

Mrebo said:

What about the children of parents hooked on hard drugs?

Well, in the current system their kids are addicted to hard drugs, in danger of getting shot to death in drug-deal related violence, and in danger of spending their lives in prison (and death is much better than decades in American prisons).

I’ve been told I look like a ghost. I took it as a compliment because I’m a huge Patrick Swayze fan.

I’m currently unemployed.

I quit my job because I hated it and it sucked and everybody in there can go to hell because they’re evil and they suck!

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It won’t do anything to correct the unjust mass-incarceration in this country. Don’t get too excited yet.

I know what would, people just need to stop breaking the law.

Nope, we need to change our fascist police-state problem and legalize all drugs.

Mrebo said:

Warbler’s proposal is crazy enough that it might just work.

Unjust laws deserve to be broken.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

That billboard in the background reminds me of high school.

That’s a billboard?

It’s a bulletin board.

That billboard in the background reminds me of high school.

It won’t do anything to correct the unjust mass-incarceration in this country. Don’t get too excited yet.

Important step toward drug legalization.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mcconnell-wants-hemp-removed-controlled-substance-list-n860161?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

Do it; it’s not to early.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler, if you don’t like something, report it.

that would be pointless.

Ah, but bitching about it (especially when you’re wrong) isn’t pointless. Got it.

Good luck then.

If you’ve got a problem with him, then just say it.

DominicCobb said:

NeverarGreat said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Why did Obi-Wan lie about not knowing R2? I know that it’s because the prequels were written after the OT and it was a mistake, but what’s the canon justification? I’m just curious.

He actually never says he doesn’t know R2.

He also never gives any indication of knowing him, or C-3PO. I would be bothered by that if I took the prequels seriously.

I mean I don’t deny that, it’s just weird to frame the question as why does “Obi-wan lie about not knowing R2?” when it really should be “why doesn’t Obi-wan seemingly make any recognition of R2?”

A lie by omission is still a lie. Also, why did R2 do the same thing? His memory wasn’t erased like 3PO’s was.

Take it to the “Icky sex in Star Wars” thread!

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

If you have a problem with me, come out say it and stop with the jokes/insults at my expense.

How do you know he wasn’t talking about ender?

I suppose that is possible. But even so, I still don’t like it. I don’t see any need to go after Ender, and I remind you that we are not allowed to go after trolls that have been banned. If we can’t go after them, shouldn’t be able to after Ender. Also I think Ender is a good guy.

I wasn’t going after him. I was joking about something that many members (not just you and he) have done that I find amusing sometimes. I didn’t mention him, and I didn’t mention anyone else.

Mrebo said:

What do you mean we can’t go after banned trolls? I don’t think mfm was going after anyone, but rather making a joke based on the situation and ones like it. But mfm couldn’t stage an exodus because nobody would go with him.

That’s exactly right. It’s almost like you read my post or something.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

If you have a problem with me, come out say it and stop with the jokes/insults at my expense.

How do you know he wasn’t talking about ender?

I was actually, lol.

Frankenstein’s monster would’ve been less compelling if he couldn’t speak eloquently.