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

On May 1, 4:54 pm, Joel <jo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> M_P <m...@[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.

Feeble wordplay.

> Excessive quoting is bad form.

Insufficient quoting is evasive.

> But you're the one who still didn't reply to the substantive content.

Wrong again.

> 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.

ROTFL! You've already spent several times as much "breath" on
pretending you know something as it would take to say what you knew
(if you knew anything).

> 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 ****?

Enough to keep posting with your pretenses but no actual knowledge.

> >> >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.

Wrong as usual ... read on.

> >> 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.

OK, I'll spoonfeed you: in "they merely forced people to buy LSD
illegally even though they could easily do so" the second "they" could
refer either to government (the first "they") or to "people" and the
"so" could refer either to "buy LSD illegally" or to "force people to
buy LSD illegally".

> >> >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.

I also said the part you replaced with "..." above -- which was in
fact the meat of my statement.

[flaccid tu quoque deleted]

> >> 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.

The other mouth-breathers.

> Perhaps not the boring ones, though.

Feel free to stop posting.

> >> 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).

Even if you could establish that as a tenable account -- and to do
that you'd have to show that the drugs you mention were in fact each
banned at the same prevalence -- you'd still have an account that as
it stands is completely consistent with coercive conformism.

> 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).

"Redneck fascist bull****" differs from "coercive conformism" how?

> >> >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.

Personal attacks are antithetical to reason.

> I
> therefore expect my opponents to be comfortable with it, as well,
> because I prefer arguing with people who are on my level.

I.e. in the gutter.

> I'm on the
> fence, as far as you go, in that regard.  You've shown a decent
> ability,

I hope not.

> but a lack of intellectual honesty.

Bull****.