alcohol/drug stance

[lordofduct]

I'm amazed that you're not seeing the logical fallacy--or at least the complete irrelevance--of your argument, that's all.

Also, choking yourself doesn't get you high on oxygen, it just DEPRIVES you of it and makes you lightheaded.

Well please point out the logical fallacy then.
As far as i know the "high" feeling kicks in after the choking so i guess the oxygen is the trigger (just guessing though).

The high doesn't occur whence the choking has stopped and you get to breathe again. Come on, every kid has played the pass out game. The high kicks in when you almost pass out from the lack of oxygen. Simple chemistry... kids even understood it. Increased heart rate causes your brain to consume the oxygen in your brain faster, deoxygenating your blood faster, and breathing fast and heavy with your head between your legs increases your heart rate. So you get your heart rate pumping by breathing heavy with head between the legs, come up quick expelling all oxygen from lungs and choke. Your brain is plugging away quickly to absorb what oxygen it can but can't find any, due to the surge of de-oxygenated blood to the brain the brain starts shutting down unnecessary processes in the body to conserve what little oxygen is left. It also pumps a large dose of endorphins into the blood stream to calm all the major organs and shut them down so they stop absorbing oxygen as well. Allowing the brain all the oxygen in hope that you will be able to breathe again before full shut down... about 3 minutes with out oxygen, and if resusitated can lead to horrible brain damage.

Thought the kids didn't understand it in that much depth, they still got as far as understanding the breathe heavy with head between legs part.

Why can't you?


Coincidentally the doctors informed my parents I was most likely going to be mentally handicapped for the rest of my life because when I was 2 I almost drown. My brother pulled me out after being under water for over 3 and a half minutes with lungs full of water. I'm not retarded... but it might play a role in the fact I'm a freakin' looney tune.

[nucking futs]

Um...no, not really. Please, man, just..do some basic research on things before spouting?

And I already pointed out the problem with your argument--it could be applied to anything that anyone does that provides a pleasant sensation, not drugs in particular, so it's irrelevant.

Didn't you say there was a fallacy which means that i took a wrong conclusion.

Yes it's true that it can be applied universally, so? Does that mean it's wrong?
The problem about splitting everyday things up into the dissatisfactions is their complexity. For example when you're going to the cinema, there are way too many reasons why you do/need that to count. But with "drugs" it's usually easier to spot because we know what they stimulate and by that we can track down the dissatisfaction behid it.

Why would it be irrelevant? I was trying to point out that the fun is not the goal. Just because you are enjoying yourself doesn't mean that you have "fun", in the end you enjoy that you have gotten something that you were missing prior. The feeling of completeness is the "fun".

@ lordofduct
Well i'm no expert in choking and no i never did it, i was just guessing there.

[vejita]

These kind of arguments are immature attempts of defining good fun and bad fun- you wanna get insightful? Go research some intelligent argumentative ethics- Rachels would be a good contemporary author to start with.

On a different note, just for argument's sake, I wonder which of you is conservative, libertarian, and liberal - I think that may shed some light on some of the presumptions here (also age, experience, moral preference, etc.). It's the people, not the drugs. Even someone who is high out of their mind (not marijuana) can force themselves to function normally- I've seen it BUT that's not to say we should raise the standard of people who are under some influence to behave normally or rationally- just like if they weren't on drugs in the first place!

[nucking futs]

These kind of arguments are immature attempts of defining good fun and bad fun- you wanna get insightful? Go research some intelligent argumentative ethics- Rachels would be a good contemporary author to start with.

On a different note, just for argument's sake, I wonder which of you is conservative, libertarian, and liberal - I think that may shed some light on some of the presumptions here (also age, experience, moral preference, etc.). It's the people, not the drugs. Even someone who is high out of their mind (not marijuana) can force themselves to function normally- I've seen it BUT that's not to say we should raise the standard of people who are under some influence to behave normally or rationally- just like if they weren't on drugs in the first place!

It would be helpfull to know who you are referring to and what kind of arguments you are talking about.

[disorderlyvision]

On a different note, just for argument's sake, I wonder which of you is conservative, libertarian, and liberal - I think that may shed some light on some of the presumptions here (also age, experience, moral preference, etc.). It's the people, not the drugs. Even someone who is high out of their mind (not marijuana) can force themselves to function normally- I've seen it BUT that's not to say we should raise the standard of people who are under some influence to behave normally or rationally- just like if they weren't on drugs in the first place!

Libertarian, all the way!

[lordofduct]

I don't know what you'd consider me completely.

Personally I consider myself more of a socialist to borderline communist. But that doesn't mean I put my bidding to the communist systems that have arose in the past.

I also consider my self relatively conservative. But I do have a lot of what people would call "liberal" ideas. Just because I believe in gay rights and socialized health insurance doesn't mean I go for what the liberal entity goes for.

But when you get to the end of it, and what others would probably consider me. They'd say I'm liberal all the way, I figure this because the one political head that embodies the opinions of this nation that I have is Ralph Nader and Ralph Nader is pushed about as a liberal. But from my understanding of what the word liberal means, and what people say liberal parties do are two completely different things. Ralph Nader for how liberal some may call him, still believes in strong family values, faith and religion for those who believe in it, and all kinds of basic conservative values. Is the difference between all these different "groups" (liberal, conservative, libertarian) our opinions on economics and taxes? Well if that is so, I don't want to have that label, and I don't think it plays ANY role in my personal moral decission about sex, religion, or any of the none economic topics.


In a blog I posted some time back about 3rd party voting I said this about 2 party systems:

2 party systems, the left and the right, liberal and conservative, black and white. We are a nation of diversity and change... not a nation of yes and no. You could meet a hundred people and ask all of them their opinions on this or that, and not one of them could give you a definite answer.

...

My point is, so many people can't be sitting on one side of the fence... and as for standing on the fence... it is hardly a fence at all. It's more like an open field on which two fences border. Those fences are the 2 parties and we run back and forth from each hoping one of them might bring us some freedom to our own desires for a nation.

I'm sorry, but so many values of these different groups leave me scratching my head as to why they can believe so many basic things, and then contradict themselves else where. I believe in free market, I love the right to start my own business and to make money from it. But I don't think that the market should be able to roam free and gain more power then the government. I don't like that they grow and grow to this unyielding power that the people (purported by our government) have no way to stop them from wreaking havoc. The idea the rich can buy their way into the government is bullshit, it's the same as all those past forms of government...

in all the past forms of dictatorships and monarchies, the rich took power. You had a king or a czar, or a single head... but still they had to appease the rich. Allowing free market to grow to gross sizes allows the rich to sway the opinion of the house. Not cool. I don't like the idea that we allowed a company like AIG to grow so enormous and powerful that when they cripple themselves and fall on their face... it no longer is their job to brush themselves off and get back up and keep going. No we as a government allowed them to grow so fucking massive that now we as a people have to bail them out!? We have to shove billions of dollars into their hands!

WHA!?

Yeah, socialized health insurance would just cost SOOOOO much money.

Go free market, but when the government asks you what the hell you're up to. Well you're accountable! Not us the people!

[vejita]

well, um...

this topic is done

[disorderlyvision]

well, um...

this topic is done

gee thanks for the astute observation

[vejita]

haha, I didn't read all of the last long post once I skimmed over Healthcare and "government is bullshit..."

I had just decided to stop giving input on the actualy topic and instead went for a sarcastic note
-So sorry you didn't get that.