Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Straight, Inc. and Derivatives => Topic started by: glider on March 03, 2004, 05:52:00 PM
-
The Psychology of Totalism and Evolution vs. God
I?m talking about black and white thinking, either or thinking. I?m talking about imagining a mutually exclusive relationship between two concepts where no mutually exclusive relationship actually exists.
For example:
Either a person displays NO signs of drug or alcohol abuse, OR they are an alcoholic doomed to death, prison, or insanity
I believe in God, therefore evolution is B.S.
I believe in Evolution, therefore, God is B.S.
I believe in God, therefore the Earth cannot revolve around the sun (think clergy versus Copernicus)
I don?t believe in God, therefore Jesus never even existed
The bible is either 100% true or its 100% false
I?m against intravenous drug use; therefore making legal access to needles is not in the interest of public health and safety even though the surgeon general, American Medical Association, the American Bar association, and the World health association insist that it is in the interest of public health and safety based on 100?s of studies.
my own politics aside, I think you understand what I'm getting at...
People will probably misread my main point here. I?m not trying to merely convince you that you SHOULD accept evolution, but if you don?t accept evolution, to do so out of integrity and intelligence rather than ignorance and reactionism. The same goes for anything. If you don?t believe in God, don?t say Jesus never existed out of ignorance and reactionism but say he never existed on its own merits. Historians, whether they believe in God or not, mostly accept that Jesus of Nazareth existed, being the son of God or not is a whole other topic ENTIRELY. Most Christians, and indeed the pope himself, accept evolution. This either/or thinking about God OR Evolution is primarily an American phenomenon.
On a personal note, my own prejudiced and personal opinion is that I don?t believe in God, however, I truly enjoyed Mel Gibson?s The Passion of Christ and was deeply moved by Jesus?s message of peace, love, forgiveness, and personal sacrifice. I?ve just been blown away by peoples comments on how they reject evolution(believers) or reject the entire idea that jesus ever existed(nonbelievers), etc purely based on their personal religious views and not accepting or rejecting those concepts on its own merits. What do you think?
This is an excerpt from Evolution For Beginners
http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html (http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html)
There are huge and wide-varying debates and real flaws over the THEORY of evolution among scientists but there is no serious debate among the scientific community over the FACT of evolution.
But its ?just a theory?
This is such a common complaint about evolution that it deserves a page of it's own. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words their using.
Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.
The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."
A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.
A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.
For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.
There is the modern theory of evolution, neo-darwinism. It is a synthesis of many scientific fields (biology, population genetics, paleontology, embryology, geology, zoology, microbiology, botany, and more). It replaces darwinism, which replaced lamarckism, which replaced the hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather), which expanded the ideas of Georges de Buffon, which in turn expanded upon the classification of Karl von Linne. (see also: Darwin's Precursors and Influences)
So there is the theory of evolution. Then there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists readily admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.
The process (simply stated) involves the genetic potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, which initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation. There is more genetic stuff to it than that, but that is basically how it works.
Yes, evolution is a fact, as real as gravity. The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of living species. Evolution is a very well established scientific concept with a massive amount of physical evidence for support. It is not a guess. Evolution is the basis of modern biology, and universities and laboratories across the world are engaged in research that explores evolution.
You don't have to 'believe' in evolution. You can trust that the thousands of scientists who study this phenomenon aren't morons, or Satanists. You can accept the general idea that life propagates with modifications, and those modifications can lead to improved survival, and that as those modifications are passed over time, many modifications can lead to a species that looks very different from its predecessor. Is that so hard to accept?
I have no faith at all in evolution. (I also have no faith in algebra, chemistry or astronomy). Evolution either stands or falls by the strength of the evidence used to substantiate it. Evolutionary biology relies on factual data, physical evidence, molecular experimentation, and it goes hand in hand with geology.
.............................................
It's true that not every theory withstands the test of time and goes on to be considered a fact by nearly all of the scientific community, but evolution is one that has.
-
WOW!!! Great info.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use
--Galileo Galilei
-
And I do believe in evolution and God!!!!!!!!
-
I am spirtual but not into organized religion and believe in the theory of evolution.
I think that there is room for both schools of thought in the truly openminded.
I would like to think there is a God but not a fire and brimstone type of God.
I think when ever man starts to interpret something anything they will undoubtedly end up putting their spin on it and bending it to meet their own needs/agenda ect. not necessarily even meaning too or with malicious intent....but that is human nature. five people can read the same thing and get 5 totally different meanings from it.
There is room for evolution and religion. There has to be it is irrational otherwise nowindays in my opinion. The theory just makes sense.
ramble ramble.....sorry We need cops.
We can't live without 'em.
But they need to start working for us....
That's no longer an option.
They've pushed it.
They've gone to far.
They've just gone to far.
Tom Crosslin
-
absolution is a indicator of weak thinking.
You are on target here. Evidence rules, not dogma.
-
"Historians, whether they believe in God or not, mostly accept that Jesus of Nazareth existed,"
Please provide some evidence this statement is true. I would agree that christian historians agree, or those relying on the bible as a historical guide would agree with this statement, but in order for non predisposed historians to make this assertion, there would be other independent evidence Jesus existed.
Please post it here.
-
prior post mine...
-
>YAWN< :rofl:
-
ft. I here sesame street has a forum probably better suited for your intelligence level if this is over your head...
-
Personally, I prefer porn and that type of thing. This stuff offers nothing rewarding. At least with porn, I can achieve something.. :rofl:
-
Well, there isn't much historical evidence outside the bible of Jesus, but there is at least some:
1. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus wrote about Jesus in 115 A.D.
2. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus prior to his death in 97 AD
3. The Jew Suetonius wrote about the crucifixion of Jesu in 52 A.D.
4. Pontius Pilate made 2 references to Jesus
5. The Talmud, a Jewish text, refers to Jesus, written prior to 135 AD
Admittedly, this is only circumstantial at best, all written after Jesus? death, but if you think about it, the bible itself could lead one to believe that Jesus actually existed. The New Testament was written by many different authors and began to be written around 60 A.D. and it seems the Christian religious movement was already well underway at that time. So that begs the question, Who and how did this religious movement begin other than by Jesus? Maybe a conspiracy to undermine the Jewish authority? I am open to ideas.
~John
-
Glider, This is Todd Brown here, fellow Dallas Stright Alumni and Portland resident.....why have we not hooked up yet?
Well anyway if you get this post and could meet me for coffee tomorow at torrefozione on twenty third and kearny at say, 10:00am that would be quite an interesting way to sart the day.
we could toss around a few stories and mabe talk about evoltion vs. creation
"We had to fearlessly face the proposition that either God is everything or else He is nothing. God either is, or He isn't. What was our choice to be?
words to live by.If you think yourself too wise to involve
yourself in government, you will be governed
by those too foolish to govern.
--Plato
-
Glider, you have hit upon something,unfortunately it is a web of lies. No doubt you found these references on a religious site that didn't mention the controversy surrounding your references. Lets look at them one at a time.
1) tactitus was 115 ad and his writing were believed to be recounts of stories circulating at the time. Not a writing during the life of christ.
2) Flavius Joseph's mention of Jesus. This paragraph, inserted into real flavius text, is a known forgery. Unfortunately, much like the ossuary of Jesus and the shroud of turin, you won't find this fact on religious sites. You must dig a bit outside the realm of those trying to prove their religosity to find it.
3) Suetonius was actually a roman historian, and this is what he wrote: "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." Hardly a jewish eyewitness account of Jesus.He also wrote this about an expulsion of jews in 49 ad from rome by Cladius "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus" was he speaking of an earlier event and meant Christ? Not likely, it appears he was speaking of an actual living man in 49 ad Chrestus and this was 49 years after christs death.. However, it has been loosely interpreted to mean the Jews in 49 ad were talking of Jesus. Still nothing even remote to being a historical reference during Jesus' life.
4) "the letters of Pilate" are known forgeries and not even good ones. Take the time to read them, they are a hoot. Pilate wrote nothing of Jesus.
5) I am not well versed in the talmud but 135 ad in anything but contemporary.
So, Glider, your reseach only turned up known fraudulent writings that weren't mentioned as such on the christian website you found. Curious? You bet. Historical references to Jesus during his life? You have found NONE save forgeries.
You are correct in your assertion that the bible began to be written 60 years after christs supposed death and that there was a huge christian movement under way. There was also many things occuring at that time by the early church that calls into question their motives and methods.
Did Jesus really exist? The answer is we can not be historically certain. Herod and Pilate never mention him. There is no record of his birth. There is no recording of his death. There are no writings of his that exist. there are no eyewitness accounts written during his life. there are known forgeries that try to compensate for this, which is suspect.
Do some more digging, Glider, you seem to be someone who enjoys the truth. The problem here is the water is very muddy when you start searching for the truth in religious documents and relying on religious sources for your answers. I have been down this path before you so I would make this comment, always verify anything you get from a religious source outside of religion. Look in skeptical writings and historical sites. Always type in the name of the document into a web browser along with the word forgery or skeptical or fraud to help get another viewpoint from someone who has no reason to lie.
This research may change the way you think. Have fun. It is late, I hope this post makes sense.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm)
-
On 2004-03-03 21:34:00, glider wrote:
So that begs the question, Who and how did this religious movement begin other than by Jesus? Maybe a conspiracy to undermine the Jewish authority? I am open to ideas.
Who knows? There are some theories but they are just that.
How do religions worshipping hare krisna start, a little blue cow god? Was he really here? How did the mormon religion grow so big when it is based on proven fraudulent writings from two centuries ago?
Saying he must have been there or the bible wouldn't exist has no basis in reality. It is quite possible Jesus walked the earth (in my opinion as a man, not a god), but evidence outside the bible of Jesus' life is non-existent: written, physical, or otherwise.
Why?
I don't know either.
-
Todd,
Can you meet me at the coffee shop on Monday at 10? Do you live in NW? I live in SE but I have some lab work to do at the University so thats not too far out of the way. Let me know if you can make it Monday
Greg,
You're right that what I sited is suspect at best and I readily admit that all references happened after Jesus's death. But just as theres no real proff of his existence, certainly nothing disproves it either. I do feel a little vindication however in that the website you sent me to does say "The vast majority of historians and theologians have always believed in the reality of Jesus' life" but that doesn't mean it should be accepted as merely common knowledge...
I'll keep digging :smile:
~John
-
Tard,
Can you meet me at the coffee shop on Monday at 10? Do you live in NW? I live in SE but I have some lab work to do at the University so thats not too far out of the way. Let me know if you can make it Monday
I'll be there. We can talk about Jesus. I'll bring a portable confessional, if you'd like..
-
On 2004-03-05 18:28:00, glider wrote:
Greg,
You're right that what I sited is suspect at best and I readily admit that all references happened after Jesus's death. But just as theres no real proff of his existence, certainly nothing disproves it either. I do feel a little vindication however in that the website you sent me to does say "The vast majority of historians and theologians have always believed in the reality of Jesus' life" but that doesn't mean it should be accepted as merely common knowledge...
I'll keep digging :smile:
~John"
Perfect attitude. Keep an open mind. My opinion is that most historians "accept" jesus lived because no one has really questioned it. The only history available is suspect at best.
I have mixed feelings on whether it is true or a fable and accept that it is too sketchy for me to make an acceptable determination, but in adsence of any evidence of the supernatural, I remain unconvinced that Jesus was any incarnation of God.
Citing a recent example, the rev Sun Moon (moonies) claims to be the son of god. It can be readily demonstrated he exists, but that does nothing to further his supernatural claim;
So, back to the topic, did Jesus actually live?
The honest answer is I don't know and it has not been demonstrated by record of history satisfactory enough to convince me.
-
Would you guys give it a rest and go read this book, please?
http://freespace.virgin.net/questing.beast/eccarius.htm (http://freespace.virgin.net/questing.beast/eccarius.htm)
Or if you happen to prefer comics:
http://freespace.virgin.net/questing.beast/ctvintro.htm (http://freespace.virgin.net/questing.beast/ctvintro.htm)
-
Aw hell, Greg, you're right again! I usually pass on religious discussion cause it's usually strident, redundant and boring. But not this time. Thanks for the heads up. But I still say the Seedlings school is probably unrelated to The Seed, despite the trained dog correlation. (retired grayhounds make lousey sniffers).
Don't worry about temptation--as you grow older, it starts avoiding you.
-- Old Farmer's Almanac
-
I always like to point out that when people mention that they dont believe in God...is it that they dont believe in what they have been taught God is? Or is it not believing in the stripped down, no frills, basic idea of WHAT a "God" is?
See, I dont believe in the Christian God.....nor do I believe in any of the various and sundry forms that "God" takes in different cultures.
But that doesnt mean I dont believe in "God" per se. Its interesting to put it these terms and get points of view.
-
You arwe absolutely right, Carmel. As the Steps say "God as I understand him".
Now God as I understand Him is me, Father Cassion V. M. Newton, Ph. D., D.D., MSA, and God says you need to get Straight!
-
On 2004-03-07 12:06:00, Carmel wrote:
"I always like to point out that when people mention that they dont believe in God...is it that they dont believe in what they have been taught God is? Or is it not believing in the stripped down, no frills, basic idea of WHAT a "God" is?
See, I dont believe in the Christian God.....nor do I believe in any of the various and sundry forms that "God" takes in different cultures.
But that doesnt mean I dont believe in "God" per se. Its interesting to put it these terms and get points of view.
"
People's beliefs and lack of beliefs are all over the board, carmel.
Some people, myself included, have adopted a system of belief that basically says, credible evidence is necessary before I/we choose to believe anything.
I see no compelling evidence of anything supernatural including gods, demons, santa claus, the easter bunny, spirits or ghosts. I stand ready to change or modify my lack of belief when credible evidence is presented to me.
Problem is, no one seems to offer anything closely resembling evidence. Instead you get suppositions, either/or axioms, and outrage when you suggest evidence is necessary in order to accept the fantastic.
Yawn, yawn, yawn.
-
On 2004-03-07 10:12:00, Antigen wrote:
"Aw hell, Greg, you're right again! I usually pass on religious discussion cause it's usually strident, redundant and boring. But not this time. Thanks for the heads up. But I still say the Seedlings school is probably unrelated to The Seed, despite the trained dog correlation. (retired grayhounds make lousey sniffers).
Don't worry about temptation--as you grow older, it starts avoiding you.
-- Old Farmer's Almanac
"
Yeah, your right there about the seedling school. Got an email from them.
You know me, I chase them dead ends and beat em to death!
-
sorry, last two posts mine, forgot to log in.
-
I'm an agnostic. I don't believe, and I don't not believe.
-
Typical wishy-washyness of a druggie. :exclaim:
-
I think in being agnostic....believing that the existience of any ultimate reality is like unknown or unknowable is almost in itself alluding to the fact that there may very well be something out there it is just impossible to classify. So I totally never understood the agnostic thing at all. What was the point? If there is a god we won't know? And we can't know because it is unknowable? I dunno....
At least it is more crediable then an entire text claiming to know it all...like the Bible. - A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
- A republic is where the sheep get to pick which wolves vote on what to have for dinner.
- But in a constitutional republic, voting on dinner is strictly
forbidden.
--A Patriot
-
Hmm...well, I suppose needing evidence is vetainly acceptable. But what would life be without a little mystique.
If I were to meet with God I wouldnt ask him/her to sign a certificate of validation, you know?
Talk about yawn.....
-
Certifricate of Validation, eh? No I don't think that would be necessary. The actual meeting would be fine, so long as it wasn't done in a dream or while otherwise consciously impaired.
Mystique is great Carmel. Fantasy is not my cup of tea...
Now, again, for those that choose to believe for the sake of believing or however they want to phrase it, have at it. But when you enter a conversation when you try to convince those that don't take suppositions and forgone conclusions, be prepared for a alternate opinions. This is where it goes south, people get offended, outraged, bored, or otherwise refuse to engage the conversation.
As far as agnostics go, I find that reasonable. I just think most agnostics haven't given the subject enough thought to formulate a strong opinion, or don't like where the thought takes them and purposely stop thinking about it.
Religion affects us all and I find the topic fascinating. It is a subject that everyone can participate in.
-
I also find religion fascinating what else motivates so many people to do so many things, and something with so little actual tangible proof of exsistance. To believe so completely in something, and to do that much and be motivated to kill and conquer and devote your life to it, and not have any solid proof...thats pretty interesting.
Each religion, tons of them, all believe with the same fervor that theirs is the path to redemption each believe they have proof of that but do they..what could be more interesting then that? I know that our bodies were made to thrive only in pure air, and the scenes in which pure air is found.
-- John Muir
-
I count myself lucky to have been educated by some very enlightened, open minded Christians. The school I attended from 6th through 10th grade was attached to a church that had split off from an Orthodoxed Presby/Calvanist church in Holland, Michigan. The pastor was a sweet guy, raising teenaged kids and all the deacons/teachers were raising toddlers and up.
Anyway, the way they taught Bible class was like a text book. They encouraged conjecture and critical reading. From that, I remember that even the Bible doesn't say that the Christian movement was started by Jesus. It was already well underway, like the Civil Rights movement in this country, just waiting for a leader or martyr to rally around.
I do think a man existed who fits that profile. I don't know what his mother named him or what anyone thought of him at the time. If you look at some of the accounts from the gospels, he weren't no damned saint! The New Testament describes him as a rabbal rouser, a disruptor or the status quo; more like a poverty born Usama Bin Laden than a Southern Baptist. The man hung out with hookers and criminals, for Christ's sake! And took it upon himself to tell a bunch of impoverished and desperate people to reject the legal authorities and religious establishment and, instead, to "anoint" themselves and just love eachother.
There's some fairly credible research that indicates that the magic ingredient to that anointing oil was none other than India Indicus or Cannabis (sweet cane) Sativa. I can easily imagine tripping one's brains out and seeing God if covered in oil strongly infused w/ Cannabis resin.
As to the nature and existance of God, I have a theory. It's only a theory. I'm not about to kill or die over it. It's just an idea. Seems to me that all of the traditions that describe what God is are describing the imutable laws of nature. Maybe the Wiccans and native people to these continents had it right all along.
It will be generally found that those who sneer habitually at human nature and affect to despise it, are among its worst and least pleasant examples
--Charles Dickens
-
There's some fairly credible research that indicates that the magic ingredient to that anointing oil was none other than India Indicus or Cannabis (sweet cane) Sativa. I can easily imagine tripping one's brains out and seeing God if covered in oil strongly infused w/ Cannabis resin.
TBPITW! ::rainbow::
-
On 2004-03-08 18:51:00, Froderik13 wrote:
"There's some fairly credible research that indicates that the magic ingredient to that anointing oil was none other than India Indicus or Cannabis (sweet cane) Sativa. I can easily imagine tripping one's brains out and seeing God if covered in oil strongly infused w/ Cannabis resin.
TBPITW! ::rainbow:: "
Don't you realize that pot is the gateway drug!?! :roll: :roll:
I'd like to see a comparison study done as to how many people have died alcohol related deaths, i.e. psyrhossis, alcohol poisoning, drunk driving etc. and how many related to pot. I've heard of a lot of people overdosing on alcohol, presriptions etc. but not ONE from pot. Why are liquor and nicotine OK, but weed not??? I'll NEVER understand this. Did we not learn anything from Prohibition days??? What do these people think gave rise to Al Capone?? Illegal booze. Make it legal again, no bootlegging crime. Make pot legal, no pot dealing crime. I don't see people doing beer or cigarette deals on the streets.Don't sweat the
- Petty Things
Don't pet the
- Sweaty Things
Water what you want to grow.
--Curiosity
-
For your answer Cayohuso, follow the money...
-
It's illegal because powerful economic interests in many different fields--medicine, alcohol, tobacco, textiles, petrochemicals, wood pulp, law enforcement, trial law, drug testing companies, insurance, and many others-- fear the potential financial harm that they might experience were cannabis legalized. They have no real belief that using it recreationally is harmful, but they will perpetuate the myth that it is in order to maintain pot's illegal status.
-
Exactly, RTP. You beat me to it and said it well. What I was going to say - my two cents:
Now it isn't just Al Capone that we're up against.
-
Yeah, I know the REAL reason for not legalizing, $$$$$, I just can't believe they keep spitting out shit like "it's the gateway drug" as their reason. Damn, by the way THEY talk you'd think "Reefer Madness" was a documentary.
It is criminal to steal a purse. It is daring to steal a fortune. It is a mark of greatness to steal a crown. The blame diminishes as the guilt increases
--Schiller (1759-1805)
-
On 2004-03-09 12:08:00, cayohueso wrote:
" Damn, by the way THEY talk you'd think "Reefer Madness" was a documentary.It is criminal to steal a purse. It is daring to steal a fortune. It is a mark of greatness to steal a crown. The blame diminishes as the guilt increases
--Schiller (1759-1805)
"
Originally, it was. Later the hipster set discovered it and showed it to hilarious effect.
-
I know, same thing with some of the ABC After School Specials. Fucking hysterical!!
The fact is the fact, the program is evil, and every attempt to make
chicken salad out of chicken shit has resulted in a Chicken shit
sandwich, No pickle on the side could ever change that.
BINGO!
-
Remember "the Death of Ritchie"? The one where the kid had the freakout room built in his closet? Later his dad killed him but it was OK 'cause the kid was flippin' on dope.
-
Nooooooo!! OMG, I don't remember that one. Shit, wonder who the propoganda machine behind THAT one was? Scare the crap out of the parents...the big, bad Drug War is coming. :roll: I remember one with Helen Hunt on some drug, jumping out a window.
A multitude of laws in a country is like a great number of physicians, a sign of weakness and malady.
--Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)
-
Reefer madness was more like a docudrama. It was propaganda put out by a rabid idiot named Harry Anslinger.
Check out this quote:
"If the hideous monster Frankenstein came face to face with the monster of marijuana he would drop dead of fright."
Harry J. Anslinger, US commissioner of narcotics, era 1930s
-
Wasn't that originally a Seed propaganda film...hmmmm I wonder
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Sad thing is, it sounds close to some of the shit they STILL say.The disrespect for the possession laws fosters a disrespect for laws and the system in general... On top of this is the distinct impression among the youth that some police may use the marihuana laws to arrest people they don't like for other reasons, whether it be their politics, their hair style or their ethnic background.
Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding
-
Hey, we arent THAT OLD. THe seed propaganda film "the seed of Hope" was circa 1972, not 1932.
:eek:
-
No not refer madness, I meant the death of Ritchie being a propaganda film, seed or traight....sorry
-
You know, when you think about it, not a whole hell of a lot has changed in the past 30 years, with the exception of these here gadgets we're typing to each other on..
-
Yeah they still use pseudo-science and scare tactics. You'd think people wouldn't go for it anymore, but it seems like it still works. I read somewhere recently that a lot of the "Ecstasy causes brain damage" research was not just flawed but fraudulent--I'll try to find a link. Also, I read that a psychiatrist in South Carolina will be using MDMA in a study to determine its effectiveness in treating females with PTSD.
-
Tell us more about the "flip-out" room, RTP. I used to go into one of those...we'd rock out to black sabbath. It was cool as SHIT! :rofl:
-
It was basically a cot-sized room in his closet that he had covered in aluminum foil and I think posters of rock bands. He would smoke grass, take pills, start up the strobelight and rock out to some 70s UFO-type druggie gutar rock. Freakout rooms like that were essential for white suburban pothead teenage guys in the late 70s- early 80s, and there is probably some variant with black lights and techno being used by kids today.
_________________
Your sponsor says it's OK for you to drink
[ This Message was edited by: RTP2003 on 2004-03-09 12:29 ]
-
Don't remember the death of Rithie.
Sounds like a fucked up story straight out of the teen help industry, modern day.
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/new ... ore5.shtml (http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/news/0702core5.shtml)
-
Sounds like a fucked up story straight out of the teen help industry, modern day.
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/new ... ore5.shtml (http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/news/0702core5.shtml)"
The madness continues...
-
It was basically a cot-sized room in his closet that he had covered in aluminum foil and I think posters of rock bands. He would smoke grass, take pills, start up the strobelight and rock out to some 70s UFO-type druggie gutar rock. Freakout rooms like that were essential for white suburban pothead teenage guys in the late 70s- early 80s, and there is probably some variant with black lights and techno being used by kids today.
Exactly. A druggie friend of mine (druggie friend, LMFAO) used to have this little crawlspace type place off of his room. "white suburban pothead teenage guys in the late 70s" yeah, that was him...He lived out to the north of Baltimore. I'd go out there to visit and we'd get stoned out of our gourds and walk around in the woods around his house (his family had $$) or go in the "freak out room" or whatever. We both played guitar.
Like I said, we were some cool-ass dudes. ::nod:: :lol:
-
I know that story has been posted before, but I never read it. What a fucking monster. Maybe I should print it out and send it to my dad. Sad, sad story...sadder still is that 'the program' most likely blamed his suicide on drug use.
Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.
--Carl Schurz, German-born U.S. general and U.S. senator
-
I get so fucking enraged when I read anything remotely close to a story like that and the mother still believes in what she did. She should be Hung out to DRy....BITCH!
-
and after his tragic suicide while discussing the program with his mom, his mom was still an avid supporter and said the program "was a godsend". I wonder if his brains were still on the wall when she made that statement.
Yep, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
"Yes, He'll be ok...he died"
Mother of a seedling upon answering her front door for another seedling who stopped by to pick him up to go to group. The mother explained that he wouldn't be going to group, that Jimmy went around to the side of the house and shot himself earlier that day.