|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 16:57:47 GMT -5
corny you have done NOTHING but show your own dishonesty. my definition describes tolerance, there is also another word INtolerance. my definition does NOT rule out being INtolerant of certain behaviors as you FALSELY claim. LOL. Read your defintion billt... "tolerance is defined as allowing others to live their lives as they see fit"does it say: "tolerance is defined as allowing others to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn't infringe on XYZ" No, it doesn't, the defintion you gave is wrong and lacking. Like I said, I am busting your chops because this is what you do in almost every debate. Either make all your defintions 100% complete not needing any assumptions or stop calling others out when they do the same exact thing. It sucks doesn't it.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 17:19:35 GMT -5
corny you sure provide comic relief.
when YOU added the qualifier it makes the definition WRONG.....tolerance IS acceptance, INtolerance does NOT allow the behavior.
i properly used and defined tolerance, YOU ADD to it something that CHANGES it to be INcorrect then claim that makes me incorrect...LOL
an example is needed.
i say a person needs to eat a well balanced diet, CORNY comes back with, you advocate cannibalism, because human flesh can be part of the balance.
when a person ABUSES their freedom, by harming others they END my "tolerance", i havent changed my definition at all, I have reacted properly to the behavior.
a person that says slavery is wrong would be a totally INtolerant person under YOUR change to my defintion
i say a person with a drivers license should be allowed to drive on our roads, CORNY comes up with billt advocates drunk driving.
being "tolerant" does NOT require a person to be 100% tolerant of every activity.
under CORNY definition NOBODY can ever be tolerant unless they allow everything, muder included.
hilarious stuff corny, i now enjoy our exchanges because i understand YOU are a joke, and accept that reality and enjoy it
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 17:28:39 GMT -5
"tolerance is defined as allowing others to live their lives as they see fit"
By YOUR definition it would be intolerant for somebody to not allow others to live their lives as they see fit.
"intolerance is defined as not allowing others to live their lives as they see fit"
All I am doing is reversing your defintion to show what intolerance would be UNDER your defintion. This in effect, shows why your defintion is not logical and wrong.
Your the joke. I enjoy the conversations because to matter what anybody presents that proves your wrong, you will still deny the fact.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 17:36:17 GMT -5
murdering someone is NOT living life, it IS asking to be removed from society.
i gave a proper and the dictionary definition of the word tolerant, YOU corny have added that one MUST tolerate EVERY possible behavior.
YOU have a problem with the concept that even a very tolerant person has LIMITS to their tolerance NOT ME.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 17:38:02 GMT -5
LOL...your adding to YOUR defintion with concepts NOT defined in YOUR defintion. That's WHY YOUR defintion (see above as quoted) is WRONG. Face it.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 17:44:52 GMT -5
tol·er·ance /ˈtɒlərəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tol-er-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry. 2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own. 3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint. 4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.
by YOUR standards the dictionary is WRONG also corny take it up with them.
because they ALSO do NOT exclude any behavior.
the dictionary in NO way implies that one must tolerate EVERYTHING, including murder.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 17:51:13 GMT -5
by the way corny you have shown yourself to be playing SILLY games of gotcha on a ridiculous point rather than discussing the issue.
a POINT i made about YOU and your approach to me months ago in matt's forum.
PROOF?
here is the definition in question
"tolerance is defined as allowing others to live their lives as they see fit"
i posted that.......and INDEED CORNY a person that was STUPID enough to tolerate murder would fit that definition.
reasonable rational people dont need EVERY single point explained in minute detail....people playing SILLY gotcha games DO hunt for one thing, ADD something to it them claim gotcha.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 17:53:11 GMT -5
"my definition does NOT rule out being INtolerant of certain behaviors as you FALSELY claim."
nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 17:54:40 GMT -5
by the way corny you have shown yourself to be playing SILLY games of gotcha on a ridiculous point rather than discussing the issue. a POINT i made about YOU and your approach to me months ago in matt's forum. PROOF? here is the definition in question "tolerance is defined as allowing others to live their lives as they see fit" i posted that.......and INDEED CORNY a person that was STUPID enough to tolerate murder would fit that definition. reasonable rational people dont need EVERY single point explained in minute detail....people playing SILLY gotcha games DO hunt for one thing, ADD something to it them claim gotcha. Duh, your describing what YOU do in every debate. Maybe you will stop doing it, now that it has been used on you.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 18:00:56 GMT -5
thank you corny....see the fat kids thread for PROOF that i used NOTHING remotely like YOUR claim in any of my posts.
since i showed ONE thread where i used no such tactics, that makes your "every debate" claim false.
corny why cant you be honest on any level?
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Jan 25, 2007 18:04:34 GMT -5
meth was legal in the 60's there were no meth labs, there were no deaths from poisoning, the main users were night shift workers and housewives trying to lose weight. billt, methamphetamine was never made illegal. It (pharmicutical grade) is still on the market. What was made illegal was the liquid inhailers that were being injected. Here's a time line. It ends in the mid 90's, but it gives a good history: www.erowid.org/chemicals/meth/meth_timeline.php Jan 18, 1887 Amphetamine was first synthesized at Universität Berlin by Romanian chemist Lazar Edeleanu (1861-1941) and originally named phenylisopropylamine. It was then largely forgotten for the next 40 years.
1919 Methamphetamine is first synthesized by Japanese scientist A. Ogata. 1930 Amphetamine was discovered to increase blood pressure.
1932 Amphetamine is first marketed as 'benzedrine' by Smith, Kline & French, in an over-the-counter inhaler to treat congestion. 1935 Amphetamine's stimulant effect is first recognized and physicians successfully use it to treat narcolepsy. 1937 Amphetamine is first approved by the American Medical Association for sale in tablet form. It is sold by prescription for use in the treatment of narcolepsy and ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). World War II Both Amphetamine and Methamphetamine are widely distributed to soldiers to help improve performance. This led to addiction problems in Japan after the war.
1940 Methamphetamine is marketed under the trade name "Methedrine" by Burroughs Wellcome.
1942 Dextro-amphetamine and methamphetamine become commonly available.
1950 - 1953 U.S. dispenses amphetamine to troops in Korea.
1954 Height of the Japanese amphetamine epidemic. There are estimated to be over 2 million amphetamine users in a population of 88.5 million. 1959 First report of IV injection of contents from Benzedrine inhalers.
1963 Illicit speed production begins when the Attorney General of California requests that injectable ampules be removed from the market.
1960's Methamphetamine use rises in the United States.
1970 Amphetamine becomes schedule II in the U.S. with the passage of the 'U.S. Drug Abuse Regulation and Control Act of 1970'. This makes it illegal to possess without a prescription.
Oct 27, 1970 The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act is passed. Part II of this is the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) which defines a scheduling system for drugs. It places most of the known hallucinogens (LSD, psilocybin, psilocin, mescaline, peyote, cannabis, & MDA) in Schedule I. It places coca, cocaine and injectable methamphetamine in Schedule II. Other amphetamines and stimulants, including non-injectable methamphetamine are placed in Schedule III.
Jul 7, 1971 Amphetamine and Methamphetamine (non-injectable) are moved from Schedule III to Schedule II. Late 1980's Smoked Methamphetamine becomes more popular.
1996 U.S. Congress passes the Methamphetamine Control Act establishing new controls over key ingredients and strengthening criminal penalties for possession, distribution and manufacturing.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 18:09:07 GMT -5
thank you corny....see the fat kids thread for PROOF that i used NOTHING remotely like YOUR claim in any of my posts. since i showed ONE thread where i used no such tactics, that makes your "every debate" claim false. corny why cant you be honest on any level? You're correct, you found one debate that you didn't use such tactics. Congratulations.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Jan 25, 2007 18:39:21 GMT -5
Drugs given (by government) to troops to improve performance?
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 18:46:24 GMT -5
corny i only looked at ONE, there are MANY, mostly one you didnt post in i admit.
thank you dixie for the chart.
that chart shows my points.....indeed meth use increased in the 60's I saw it with my own eyes! the chart confirms that.
it was made illegal in 1970, it IS illegal to possess NOW, unlike today, doctors in the 60's werent cooperative with drug ABUSERS, they DIDNT write prescriptions without legitimate medical needs back then(they do NOW because the laws have created a black market for drugs and and the PROFIT motive of writing a prescription NOW is far greater than it was back then).
since the prohibition of 1970 there has been an explosion(pun intended) meth labs all over rural USA, the use has gone from being monitored by doctors to wide open with NO quality controls on the manufacturing process.
remember i wouldnt take it after the firtst time even when offered free, I think it is MORONIC to abuse ANY drug......but I value freedom and liberty for ALL far more than imposing my morality on everyone else through force of government.
IF we could have 6 months of complete prohibition NO DRUGS allowed, caffeine, nicoteine, alcohol, NONE of the recreational drugs, people would see how much HARM comes to society as a direct result of the attempted prohibition.
i am consistant on this issue, each human owns their own body, has a natural right to decide for themself which substances/foods they will consume, and people that ABUSE their rights by harming others with their ACTIONS should be arrested and dealt with swiftly and harshly for their ACTIONS whatever substance they have consumed is IRRELEVANT.
yes killer the US government has given all sorts of drugs to its citizens...tuskegee experiments, and many military, including lsd.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 18:47:14 GMT -5
Drugs given (by government) to troops to improve performance? The Nazis gave out Meth to their troops during World War II as well. Adolf Hitler was given a daily dose of Meth as well.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 18:48:50 GMT -5
elvis presley used daily.....pretty sure JFK did also
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 18:49:18 GMT -5
"corny i only looked at ONE, there are MANY, mostly one you didnt post in i admit."
Fair enough...I don't intend on going through all of your posts to work out an average.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Jan 25, 2007 18:55:19 GMT -5
Well I think government drugging its soldiers/citizens is CREEPY!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 18:59:05 GMT -5
In war, sometimes the risk of addiction is outweighed by the risk of life and limb.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Jan 25, 2007 19:03:07 GMT -5
So being doped up helps soldiers avoid (or reduce) loss of life and limb?
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Jan 25, 2007 19:04:33 GMT -5
Well I think government drugging its soldiers/citizens is CREEPY! I worked at Talldega HealthCare on a locked down Alzheimer's unit in the late 90's. I had a resident that was under my care (I was her primary caregiver on my shift, because she thought I was someone else and became attached to me, therefore would not fight me). She had been a French Professor at Tuskegee. On her good days she would sit and tell me about her husband, who was a Tuskegee Airman. On her bad days, she would demand that no one speak English around her, only French. She didn't have Alzheimers. She had contracted syphillis from her husband, and it was not treated (big scandal with THAT experiment) and it attacked and distroyed her brain. The government has done horrible things to the people in the past. I would not be suprised to find out it still goes on to a certain degree.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Jan 25, 2007 19:08:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 19:22:50 GMT -5
So being doped up helps soldiers avoid (or reduce) loss of life and limb? Well, the amounts given to soldiers were obviously intended to enhance in a physical manner for a short period of time. They weren't given enough to cause them to reach the extreme levels or become incapacitated. Example, giving them a drug so that they would stay awake. Falling asleep and allowing an enemy to sneak up on you and others, usually doesn't result in good times.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Jan 25, 2007 19:24:14 GMT -5
They gave several of the Airmen syphillis, without their knowlege, to study the effects it had when left untreated. www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.htmlThis artical does not tell how many of the 399 were airmen, but if memory serves, there were 5 that were airmen.
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on Jan 25, 2007 21:30:25 GMT -5
...Hank Erwin obviously loves to hear himself talk if he's shelling out the sheckles to be on 101.1; but of course I'm sure the station's glad to cash the checks considering their #1 adverstisement is PSAs for HD radio. I haven't been able to listen to regular programs in a while, but is the "call me, I can help" mortgage lady still on as a sponsor?
To me, Hank Erwin is like Lee Davis-light from a Jesus Crispy perspective: a milquetoast broken record stuck repeating the same phrases over and again. At least Lee does have historical knowledge and can follow a logical course of thought, though.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Jan 26, 2007 1:57:35 GMT -5
But the armed forces also used the speeders in high enough doses to do more than make the men alert. They knew that higher doses and/or more potent speed would increase aggression, and suppress fear, so the boys would fight longer and harder...
But when one looks back at the old days, it would be remiss to leave out a big source of "upper drugs"...
Trucker speed... Christmas trees (black bettys, red cross, and many others) were everywhere back then, and people used them to make a 16 hour day less tiring... It seemed that nearly all the OTR guys had an endless supply of "trucker candy"...
Crystal meth is a whole different animal. There were a small number of speed freaks back then, but the ready availability of the less potent uppers satisfied the need - without the horrible consequences of using the pure stuff... But don't do drugs... They waste your life, just like booze...
Speed Kills! Keed spills! Skeed pills! (I wonder if anyone here has ever seen that poster from back in the early 70's? LOL)
|
|
lovinusa
Cog in Training
God Bless the USA
Posts: 78
|
Post by lovinusa on Jan 26, 2007 10:39:17 GMT -5
i was given meth by a basketball coach in panama city fla, the real problems with drug use come from trying to prohibit it, not the use itself.....those that dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it, we are in the midst of repeating the FAILED prohibition. Meth was made illeagal because "Methamphetamine is a very addictive stimulant drug that activates certain systems in the brain. It is chemically related to amphetamine but, at comparable doses, the effects of methamphetamine are much more potent, longer lasting, and more harmful to the central nervous system (CNS)." www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/methamphetamine.htmlmore than likely the "coach" was giving you amphetamines not methamphetamines. You can still buy amphetamines otc. usually found in diet pills. If your "coach" was giving you meth it would explain alot
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 26, 2007 12:36:54 GMT -5
what would it explain please???
it is related you say, it is the same drug in a purer form and indeed is more potent.
that is WHY the war on drugs is stupid, METH is the response to making the milder form illegal.
now you have a more powerful drug being homemade instead of the proper dosage made by drug companies and dispensed through pharmacies.
|
|
|
Post by jonathant on Jan 26, 2007 13:24:19 GMT -5
I'd just like to give a big STFU to Billt and Phinehas (come on Bill, it's a new forum, no more corny). All the bickering does is clog up the forum and make the rest of us want to read about Barbaro.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 26, 2007 13:24:32 GMT -5
what would it explain please??? it is related you say, it is the same drug in a purer form and indeed is more potent. that is WHY the war on drugs is stupid, METH is the response to making the milder form illegal. now you have a more powerful drug being homemade instead of the proper dosage made by drug companies and dispensed through pharmacies. billt - People that take recreational drugs don't want "mild" stuff. They want to get as high as they can for as long as they can and for as cheap as they can, that's why these drugs get refined. The more people take of these drugs, the more refined or greater the quantity they need in order to get the same effects. I asked before but you never answer...if the whole country replaced their caffeine addiction with an addiction to one of the following drugs, would that be worse for our health and society, the same or better? (Marijuana, Meth, Crack, Cocaine, Heroin) I know you want to decriminalize illegal drugs, which I have agreed should be done, but you seem to give the impression it will be a positive thing if everybody were to be using these drugs on a daily basis. Is it just me or are you always defending these drugs like their benign?
|
|