SoCal Melee Community

[Flamin Roy]

Wtf??????????????????????

 

[Lovage]

Right, cuz, ya know, the government runs twitter.

Dante Fox Used Sarcasm

It Was ****ing Stupid
Stop Posting, a$$hole

 

[-Patr1ot-]

lol i love conspiracy theory

 

[DanteFox]

Dante Fox Used Sarcasm

It Was ****ing Stupid
Stop Posting, a$$hole

 

[Flamin Roy]

lol
10charmanders

 

[embracethe12]

nobody is impressed.
you're not clever.

 

[Nasty_Nate]

double post ftl

 

[Nasty_Nate]

LOL
I thought it was funny

gotta say, american government knows what they're doing in terms of subtle oppression

facepalm

 

[joeplicate]

honestly, dante

I didn't think you were a bad poster until you got self-conscious about it




adam, I'd like to read that article
and then talk about it in a way that doesn't suck horse ****

 

[Kira-]

I agree with joe
Never disliked you until after the list
but that means it did its job ^^

 

[NeighborhoodP]

facepalm

stuff like this is why i say you're a typical 19-year-old

you like to think you're smart but i've never seen you defend anything you've ever said with something logical

 

[Alex19]

wow i tried that bowser thing to practice techskill....i had never heard of it and my fox felt pretty **** amazing Hahahaha

 

[Nasty_Nate]

stuff like this is why i say you're a typical 19-year-old

you like to think you're smart but i've never seen you defend anything you've ever said with something logical

no *****

I know you. If I say why i disagree well get into a whole thing where youll be like "People are pieces of ****, our governments pieces of ****, etc etc.." and Ill be like "uh.... no because blah blah blah" then youll put yourself in one of your Neighborhood P no matter what happens I win situations

For example you might say if I disagree with (insert arguement here) that I really am a stupid kid and dont know enough about the outside world, have to get out, have to read, etc.

If I dont post to avoid that whole game youll be like "he didnt post what a ***** its cause he knows hes wrong and cant give an intellectual defense" or something of that sort

Only thing left to do would be to agree with you, and thats just silly.


But of course theres always the possibility that it will become an argument about who cares. Ill say "I dont care anymore ima stop posting" and youll say "ok because you cant defend your argument logically." On the flip side if you wanna stop posting youll probably say something like "Your illogical and close minded, theres no use in discussing this further with a child"

Either way there's no use having the conversation in the first place.

Theres obviously no changing your mind over simple discussion, so all I can do is facepalm.

 

[NeighborhoodP]

I know you.

Obviously you don't.

If I say why i disagree well get into a whole thing where youll be like "People are pieces of ****, our governments pieces of ****, etc etc.." and Ill be like "uh.... no because blah blah blah" then youll put yourself in one of your Neighborhood P no matter what happens I win situations

1. Sounds like johns. Don't add snide comments then.

2. Don't make me call you out on some of your ridiculously illogical statements. I don't like pasting AIM logs like that but if you're going to act like a *****, I'm gonna slap you like one.

edit: you're gonna have a hard time proving my points of view are logically unfounded considering I've been getting paid for my arguments since I was 17 and I've had countless of arguments on Smash Boards for all to see. Pretty sure you're in the minority on this one.

That means you have to prove your point, which you always fail to do. You're just hiding behind the veneer of your johns.

 

[pockyD]

one of my friends from college was legitimately adamant that crack was invented to keep the black man down

 

[Nasty_Nate]

if I post something Im threatened with him posting past aim logs of my illogical statements

if I post nothing you get the last word

I dont know you at all


Ugh talking to you over AIM was rediculous. I couldnt explain in full detail what I mean by my statements because halfway through me typing youd interrupt with something else.

Its not that serious

(do you aim log everything?)

 

[NeighborhoodP]

i'm challenging you to make a logical argument and you shrink away from it every time, so i'm calling you a ***** out in the open.

listen, the burden of proof is on you. don't know who you're used to discussing things with but i don't let stupid *** one-liners pass by

you can turn it into whatever else you want, but that's what it is. tough ****.

one of my friends from college was legitimately adamant that crack was invented to keep the black man down

why do you think this is so laughable? i always thought this was a long-running inside joke that i didn't get, but i was talking to my history buff of a friend and he asserted that there's more truth than non-truth to it.

of course it's ignorant to assume that was the only reason, and black people aren't special -- it's about a separation of class and keeping it that way, not race -- but yeah dude, look at the drug laws and tell me why caffeine, alcohol and nicotine (rich white man drugs for the sake of argument) are legal and marijuana and crack/cocaine are not (poor minority drugs).

 

[Kira-]

not bad emil ><
*runs*

but really adam, you add snide comments all over the place, he isn't trolling any more than you have

 

[NeighborhoodP]

it's about context.

i say condescending **** when it's obvious someone doesn't know what they're talking about. (and if you really wanna get technical about it i have stopped doing that for a while now.) here's what i said:

i read a good article in journalism class about how twittering helps keep da poor people down

when you're rich, you stay private

when you're poor, it's all about indiscretion

lotta good points made.

gotta say, american government knows what they're doing in terms of subtle oppression

that's a jumping off point, using the "poor = indiscretion, rich = private" thing (and hopefully anyone with any critical thinking skills can make the jump as to how that relates to twitter -- or you could just ask and i'd clarify some more). furthermore, how often do i say things with no backup? if you're goign to respond to it, add something logical or stfu because there's nothing i said that's obviously laughable, and even if it did seem like that on the surface, you should know i don't make a habit of saying illogically unfounded things (not to mention it's not my article in the first place) so all you have to do is ask for clarification

if it was some random noob i just would've trolled him (or more likely, ignoredh im) but i respect emil more than that. too bad he doesn't respect me more than that.

 

[bbb]

wow, who cares guys?


just tap into the heart of the posts

 

[pockyD]

why do you think this is so laughable? i always thought this was a long-running inside joke that i didn't get, but i was talking to my history buff of a friend and he asserted that there's more truth than non-truth to it.

of course it's ignorant to assume that was the only reason, and black people aren't special -- it's about a separation of class and keeping it that way, not race

the "black people" part was the part that most found "funny", but I do truly find the rest of it pretty absurd

to me, it makes no more sense than to suggest that candy was invented to keep dumb kids from learning

but yeah dude, look at the drug laws and tell me why caffeine, alcohol and nicotine (rich white man drugs for the sake of argument) are legal and marijuana and crack/cocaine are not (poor minority drugs).

well first off, alcohol is a "drug" used by everyone of all classes. Not only that, the government DID try to ban it.

On the other hand, cocaine (along with other stuff like heroin, etc.) is largely consumed by "high-class" people as well; the main difference being that the media simply doesn't make as big a deal out of business execs doing it as opposed to the burnt out crackhead who shot a nice couple on vacation to take $20 from them

The prior group of drugs are simply "legal" vs illegal because their effects are deemed less drastic than the others - I don't really see how economic availability plays even a small role.

 

[NeighborhoodP]

the "black people" part was the part that most found "funny", but I do truly find the rest of it pretty absurd

to me, it makes no more sense than to suggest that candy was invented to keep dumb kids from learning

well the jumping off point for anything (in my mind, anyway) is the disconnect between the schedule classes of drugs. why is such and such drug banned? what is the rationale? in theory i think it's supposed to go like, you put the harshest bans on the drugs that only have recreational purpose. there are various health benefits shown for caffeine and alcohol (wine specifically; not sure of any benefits of hard alcohol) in small doses, though, so i can understand that. but what about nicotine? and marijuana and meth have shown health benefits too, even ecstasy.

then you add in potential for abuse -- okay, meth, cocaine and ecstasy can be crazy addicting. but then again, what studies have been done? the media always talks about these drugs in hush-hush whispers, but never provides actual factual addiction rates. the closest i've found is this about cocaine on wiki:

The risk[1] of becoming cocaine-dependent within 2 years of first use (recent-onset) is 5-6%; after 10 years, it's 15-16%. These are the aggregate rates for all types of use considered, i.e., smoking, snorting, injecting. Among recent-onset users, the relative rates are higher for smoking (3.4 times) and much higher for injecting.

link

sounds much lower than the media would have you believe, no?

meanwhile we already know the potential of abuse for drugs such as caffine, alcohol and nicotine especially, so once again there's a disconnect when there's evidence supporting the theory that nicotine, in fact, is more addictive than any of the so-called illegal hard drugs (cept maybe meth).

so once you come to the conclusion that, okay, there really isn't a specific rhyme or reason as to why such and such drug is banned, then you start coming up with theories as to why it is and try to find supporting facts for it. hence the "omg suppress teh blacks!!11" yes, it's a fairly convenient argument, but that doesn't mean there's not a lot of logic you can tie to it

i'm not saying i fully believe it -- i honestly don't have enough information to truly know -- but i can easily make a (strong) plausible argument for it

well first off, alcohol is a "drug" used by everyone of all classes. Not only that, the government DID try to ban it.

i'm talking about as a whole. obviously it's a lot harder to ban it once it's infected the society and like 90% of the population incorporates it into their daily lives, but then again i can also point to the fact that the population itself is 85-90% white (and much higher back then)

On the other hand, cocaine (along with other stuff like heroin, etc.) is largely consumed by "high-class" people as well; the main difference being that the media simply doesn't make as big a deal out of business execs doing it as opposed to the burnt out crackhead who shot a nice couple on vacation to take $20 from them

but you can make a lot more money off of cocaine and heroin being illegal and simply controlling a large portion of the flow in and out of the country than you ever can by it being legal

but there's no point in doing that with alcohol/nicotine cause it's already used by everyone so you may as well tax it and keep da money rolling in. it's easier to tax the 5-10% of the population abusing those "hard" drugs when they're illegal than it is when they're legal imo

The prior group of drugs are simply "legal" vs illegal because their effects are deemed less drastic than the others - I don't really see how economic availability plays even a small role.

"deemed" so by a group with a large controlling interest in the perception of such. science strongly indicates nicotine is just as, if not more, addicting than any other drug you could name, and unlike amphetamine/cocaine/ecstasy/marijuana, there are no positive medical associations (correct me if i'm wrong)

 

[DanteFox]

I agree with joe
Never disliked you until after the list
but that means it did its job ^^

see, now I'm just getting mixed messages.

 

[NeighborhoodP]

be yourself and stop trying to fit in and being a ****** in the process.

if by being yourself you are indeed a ******, we will let you know with the quickness what flies and what doesn't.

can't teach you how to assimilate into a social group, you just have to have some tact and self-awareness of how what you say will be interpreted...

 

[Kira-]

To me you were just there, some poster I saw but didn't care either way. I've like barely ever talked to you but I remember playing you at the last UCLA in teams and I was surprised you actually adapted while you played, so mentally I had already put you higher than a noob and realized you actually did know how to play this game to some extent, plus you are almost never serious so it's pretty hard to dislike you at all

then you tried pretty hard to "get back at us" or w/e after the list, kinda lowered yourself to mio status lol. when i said "that means it did its job" it's supposed to make things interesting, kinda like HugS' thread with the embarrassing pictures. but in the end it is all for comedic purposes (i hope most of you understand that)

anyway i don't hold it against you, you're still the same person as before. people will get defensive after a list of that sort, it's to be expected. btw we should play at the next UCLA if you're going.

 

[-Patr1ot-]

Jesus christ tldr this whole page. even if it did seem funny. I like how they started arguing about how they dont want to argue... and it led to argument XD.

Socal too good.

also.. really derek? Was that a yu gi oh reference?

 

[Gishnak]

Unfortunately, many people like to think that certain drugs are made illegal because of their inherit effects, possible abuse, and the like. While that certainly has a role in it, most things are made illegal because powerful lobbyists and politicians.

Laws are much less based on facts then politics then we'd all like to believe.

 

[pockyD]

First off, I want to clarify that there is a big difference between how >I< believe drug law should be handled and how the government already does it (or claims to do it anyway )... In the context of "why" it already IS banned/legal/created-to-keep-the-black-man-down, I'm merely trying to explain how I expect the government to act, not how I believe it SHOULD

well the jumping off point for anything (in my mind, anyway) is the disconnect between the schedule classes of drugs. why is such and such drug banned? what is the rationale? in theory i think it's supposed to go like, you put the harshest bans on the drugs that only have recreational purpose. there are various health benefits shown for caffeine and alcohol (wine specifically; not sure of any benefits of hard alcohol) in small doses, though, so i can understand that. but what about nicotine? and marijuana and meth have shown health benefits too, even ecstasy.

Off the top of my head, I remember smoking being considered as a possible treatment for alzheimer's; a blind google search reveals a lot of results for 'nicotine health benefits', which i didn't bother looking in to, but i don't think it's unreasonable

also, I remember on House, he prescribed smoking as a cure for some sort of diarrhea - no idea if there's any real science behind that, but I enjoyed it

then you add in potential for abuse -- okay, meth, cocaine and ecstasy can be crazy addicting. but then again, what studies have been done? the media always talks about these drugs in hush-hush whispers, but never provides actual factual addiction rates. the closest i've found is this about cocaine on wiki:

link

sounds much lower than the media would have you believe, no?

meanwhile we already know the potential of abuse for drugs such as caffine, alcohol and nicotine especially, so once again there's a disconnect when there's evidence supporting the theory that nicotine, in fact, is more addictive than any of the so-called illegal hard drugs (cept maybe meth).

I too don't know about how relatively addicting any of these things are... on the other hand, if something is deemed relatively "harmless", then it probably doesn't really matter how addictive it is

so once you come to the conclusion that, okay, there really isn't a specific rhyme or reason as to why such and such drug is banned, then you start coming up with theories as to why it is and try to find supporting facts for it. hence the "omg suppress teh blacks!!11" yes, it's a fairly convenient argument, but that doesn't mean there's not a lot of logic you can tie to it

i'm not saying i fully believe it -- i honestly don't have enough information to truly know -- but i can easily make a (strong) plausible argument for it

This is all getting far away from the original point (crack was "invented"... , not crack was "banned")

Anyways, sure there are doubts as to whether the 'official' assessment of the dangers of certain drugs are correct relative to each other, but really, any dissenting theory individually would have exponentially more holes than the simplest, most 'obvious' explanation

i'm talking about as a whole. obviously it's a lot harder to ban it once it's infected the society and like 90% of the population incorporates it into their daily lives, but then again i can also point to the fact that the population itself is 85-90% white (and much higher back then)

Well, that first part is pretty much the reason alcohol is no longer banned (and incidentally, having nothing to do with race).

The second part doesn't really say much; the "fact" that 90% of the population regularly consumes alcohol and the "fact" 90% of the population is white don't even imply correlation, much less causation; it's just a mere coincidence that the numbers are the same

it's like saying 20% of the population is under the age of 24, and 20% of the population is mexican

I don't think that you actually meant it in this way, but aside from that, I don't understand why you would have brought up the percentage of whites

but you can make a lot more money off of cocaine and heroin being illegal and simply controlling a large portion of the flow in and out of the country than you ever can by it being legal

but there's no point in doing that with alcohol/nicotine cause it's already used by everyone so you may as well tax it and keep da money rolling in. it's easier to tax the 5-10% of the population abusing those "hard" drugs when they're illegal than it is when they're legal imo

I'm legitimately curious as to how much people think the government "profits" from drug bans (relative to its costs in resources spent controlling it, not to mention addressing the violence and subversion that goes hand in hand with any illegal activity)... I would imagine that selling crack at 7-11 with a 50% tax on top would be more profitable. Of course, my speculation is based on nothing at all, but I tend to believe that the other side also has no more of a logical base than mine would

"deemed" so by a group with a large controlling interest in the perception of such. science strongly indicates nicotine is just as, if not more, addicting than any other drug you could name, and unlike amphetamine/cocaine/ecstasy/marijuana, there are no positive medical associations (correct me if i'm wrong)

Well as I mentioned before, "addictiveness" is far behind more direct factors, like capacity for immediate damage, when considering the "dangers" of a drug. Whereas your first time smoking, you might cough a lot, look like an idiot, not be able to sit still, and constantly use the bathroom, the first time you use LSD might lead you to jump out the window thinking you can fly

And yes, it is entirely possible that the motives of those behind the controlling body are fuzzier than we are led to believe, but at the very least, we can all pretty much concede that their KNOWLEDGE of the drugs likely exceeds all of ours combined; whether they use that knowledge as the exclusive basis for determining the restrictions on a drug is perhaps debatable i suppose, but if anyone ever WAS qualified to make such a call, they would be




Aside from that, I think drug law is too restricting anyway, and I think increased freedom in that area would actually help tone down things like drug-related violence and other side effects (exploding meth labs?)

And this is all really not that relevant anyway to the original statement, because once again, the claim was that it was INVENTED to keep the black man down, not banned to do the same

 

[pockyD]

on the other subject, there's a fine line between when you should "be yourself" and when you should "improve yourself"

 

[DanteFox]

yeah I'll go to UCLA.

 

[bbb]

cool story bro

 

[SuperRad]

I put some credence in crack being 'invented' to keep the "black man" down. I've also heard that it was created by the CIA so they could fund secret operations.
I don't know what to believe because I haven't done the research myself, but a couple different teachers I've had said that it's certainly possible that both the above are true.

 

[joeplicate]

drugs r tyte

i been smokin my sess

practically n expert now

let me tell you everything about the government

 

[bbb]

if the government brought me my sweet mary jane, then I guess they'se down

 

[joeplicate]

this is actually some great discussion

Let me say that I think there should be no stigma on conducting clinical trials about recreational drugs.

 

[bbb]

yo uncle sam, bring a sack or pass it back homie

 

[SuperRad]

this is actually some great discussion

Let me say that I think there should be no stigma on conducting clinical trials about recreational drugs.

I'd be willing to bet that the only reason more trials aren't conducted in the US on recreational drugs is that the results would be damaging to the government's current stance on drug control.

edit: Maybe not only, but the main reason at least.

 

[Gishnak]

I'd be willing to bet that the only reason more trials aren't conducted in the US on recreational drugs is that the results would be damaging to the government's current stance on drug control.

edit: Maybe not only, but the main reason at least.

Well, sure that is a reason, but someone has to fund these things...

 

[Alex19]

kira's hair is the ****...and his glasses Hahaha

 

[Lovage]

drugs r tyte

i been smokin my sess

practically n expert now

let me tell you everything about the government

sounds like joe the volcano to me

LOLOLOLOLOLO