Re: =>Albert Hofmann, Inventor of LSD, Embarks on Final Trip <=

M_P <m_p@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>> >> You *are* a straw man.  I don't need to create a straw-man argument.
>>
>> >You don't *need* to, but you did.
>>
>> False.  You keep repeating that to avoid the discussion.
>
>LOL! *You're* the one who just now deleted the substantive content.


I didn't "delete" anything.  The previous posts are still there.
Excessive quoting is bad form.

But you're the one who still didn't reply to the substantive content.
Nice try at deflecting.


>> >> Lol, well, now that you mention it, there actually was a very good
>> >> reason for it being banned,
>>
>> >Provide evidence for your claim.
>
>Still waiting ....


I already made it clear I'm not going to waste my breath on it.  It's
not even the only issue in play, as I'll go into in a later section of
this reply.


>> >> but I wouldn't expect you to have a clue
>> >> about it, so never mind.
>>
>> I *knew* you'd do that!  Oh man, I read you just like a book.  The
>> words "never mind" are there for a reason.  If you need evidence,
>> that's exactly why you don't know about it, kiddo.
>
>You have yet to establish that there's anything to know. Who do you
>think you're impressing with these pretensions to knowledge?


How much do you think I give a ****?


>> >What you said had so many pronouns it could be read in any number of
>> >ways.
>>
>> Oh, OK.  Sorry, dude.  I'll be sure to write like a quiet little
>> library-visiting sweater-and-khakis-wearing fruitcake, so my posts
>> will be clearer.  ****in' college drone.  I moved on from college-
>> level writing.
>
>You mean you "moved on" from clear unambiguous writing. And you
>consider that progress?


Quite correct.  Absolutely.  Except that my writing is clear and
unambiguous, if your brain doesn't fall apart while reading it.  If it
does, that's hardly my fault.  I'm just smarter than you.


>> You just lack basic comprehension.  It wasn't unclear
>> at all,
>
>Yes it was, for the reasons I explained and you failed to
>substantively address.


You said I used many pronouns.  I don't consider that especially
"substantive".  A specific deconstruction of what I wrote would be
more helpful.


>> >So what in your fevered imagination was "the meat of my statement"?
>>
>> "the ban ... was simply coercive conformism"
>
>Wrong as usual. That was merely the least insane remaining alternative
>after protection was ruled out.


It was all you said!  Good God, go back and read your first reply in
the thread.  It was quite short.


>> Not very fevered, is it?
>
>Not a bit. Are you engaged in some sort of projection here?


Oh, come on.  You know I was referring to what you said about my
"fevered imagination" (which, ironically enough, is utter projection).


>> You know what, you aren't in a position to say that.  Granted, I
>> wasn't exactly imitating Barack Obama at a campaign rally, but I
>> wasn't trying to.  I like being what you would conceive of as
>> "sophomoric", because it's funny.
>
>To you.


I guarantee it's funny to others.  Perhaps not the boring ones,
though.


>> But my point was not sophomoric,
>> period.
>>
>> It is laughable that people still take the '60s so damn seriously.
>> LSD is not without significance, to be sure, but it didn't have all
>> that much to do with progress, and your implication had to be that the
>> government felt there was something socially "dangerous" about it.
>
>If you have a better explanation, now's the time.


I certainly do.  The congress, and the DEA, have shown a very clear
pattern with regard to recreational drugs.  Once it reaches a certain
prevalence, it's banned.  It happened then with LSD, and in the '80s
with MDMA, and in recent times with some of the research chemicals.
It's about consistency with pot being illegal, as much as it is about
the recreational use of these drugs themselves (except for something
like 2C-T-7, which caused deaths).

Of course, they can never overcome the inconsistency with alcohol
being legal, so it's just more typical American redneck fascist
bull**** (on the surface, which is the element we're discussing here).


>> >You're "secure in your ability to make personal attacks"? That's like
>> >saying you're secure in your ability to smear feces on the walls ...
>> >which I'll bet you are, at that.
>>
>> I notice you left out the "and withstand" between "make" and "personal
>> attacks".  That really takes it purely out of context.
>
>No it doesn't; you made two claims in one sentence, one of which ("I'm
>secure in my own ability to withstand personal attacks") I have no
>problem with, so I addressed only the other one.


They are interrelated.  Didn't you ever take calculus?  I make these
attacks with the expectation that it will draw fire on me, but I am
confident in my ability to reason in such an adversarial format.  I
therefore expect my opponents to be comfortable with it, as well,
because I prefer arguing with people who are on my level.  I'm on the
fence, as far as you go, in that regard.  You've shown a decent
ability, but a lack of intellectual honesty.

-- 
Joel Crump