Dog hit by car after being fed LSD by naked couple

Status
Not open for further replies.
alasdairm said:
if you make a claim and you're unable or unwilling to back up your claim beyond "it's obvious, isn't it?", then that speaks to the veracity of the claim.
alasdair
Click to expand...

This is incorrect.
A claim that doesn't have any evidence to back it up is not therefore incorrect, or less correct.
You have committed a logical error/ fallen prey to a common fallacy.
You don't have to choose to accept the claim, but lack of evidence is not the same thing as lack of correctness.
Psychomimetic is correct when s/he says that some things that are clearly true have no scientific studies to back them up.
You have too much faith in science to explain the world for you, and you therefore don't trust that some things that science cannot explain may also be real.

There are things that happen that science cannot explain. Any good scientist admits this.
Those who get angry and fight are not scientists, but merely converts to the religion of science.
They require explanations for all material phenomena in the realm of science.
Without the backing of a scientific study, they are unable to accept the wisdom that comes from actual experience in the world.
They are blind to major portions of reality.
The limits of their vision are the limits of what has already been proven. (And this is but a small portion of what is real.)
If you mention that other two types of real phenomena to them - those that are not yet proven, and those that will never be proven because they are not provable - they cannot grasp them, or accept them. Their realities are limited to the bare minimum of conclusions that are based on published studies.

I know when I am happy, or angry, or relaxed, or stressed. I do not need science to tell me whether or not it can recognize and evaluate my own direct experience of life.

Those of us with experience with LSD and cannabis know about their relative (dosage-dependent) strength. Just because science cannot reliably distinguish between types of consciousness, just because science cannot accurately measure one's (temporary) distance from consensus reality, doesn't mean that we are incorrect.

I believe that you would be much more successful if you expanded your definition of science from
'work done on chemicals/particles etc. by technicians in lab suits' to
'a philosophy of inquiry into the condition of existence based on the scientific method'.

If you did so, you would see that ignoring common sense and experience is just as dangerous as completely trusting that common sense and experience give the final word.
This conversation is clearly closely linked to that we had in the thread on the 13-year old boy who died after smoking synthetic marijuana through a plastic Pez dispenser.
If you refuse to accept as real conclusions that do not have scientific studies to back them, you will miss generalizations, explanations, and motivations for important phenomena relevant to harm reduction. These generalizations, explanations, and motivations may be employed as part of the scientific method, but if your mind is closed to all explanations save those published in scientific journals, you are not being a responsible scientist, in my opinion.
 
slimvictor said:
Why do you refuse to play the game?
Click to expand...
to me this is not a game. i saw a friend's dog die after ingesting marijuana. i would not give a dog lsd or marijuana.

you talk a lot - here and elsewhere - about the importance of logic yet you're curiously determined to press the logically fallacious false dilemma here to make your point. the inconsistency is notable.

alasdair
 
that is so fucked up, hopefully they had taken the lsd then decided to give some to the dog while they were all fucked up and didnt instead plan to have an acid party with the family dog. either way, animal cruelty is no joke.
 
that's not the same at all.

are you going to give your dog "a taste" of chocolate? clearly people like it, so it can't possibly be very harmful for a dog..... right?

stupid, irresponsible fuck.
Click to expand...

It's closer than comparing giving chocolate to your dog which is known fatal, and giving pot to your dog which isn't. Is a taste of alcohol going to kill my kid? Think before you speak.

the couple's denying giving the dog acid. The dog was put down.
Click to expand...

that sucks ='(
 
alasdairm said:
to me this is not a game. i saw a friend's dog die after ingesting marijuana. i would not give a dog lsd or marijuana.

you talk a lot - here and elsewhere - about the importance of logic yet you're curiously determined to press the logically fallacious false dilemma here to make your point. the inconsistency is notable.

alasdair
Click to expand...

Actually, the question I posed is not a "logically fallacious false dilemma". It is a reasonable question, and if you don't have an answer for it, it means that you are so frozen by your own fear of being wrong, or of not having 100% iron-clad backing for each statement that you make, that you are unable to fathom the way normal, every day discussion of events proceeds.
 
slimvictor said:
Actually, the question I posed is not a "logically fallacious false dilemma". It is a reasonable question...
Click to expand...
now you are just being ridiculous.

false dilemma definition (source): "The bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. "

false dilemma definition (source): "A false dilemma...is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options" and goes on to say "False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice".

your question is absolutely a false dilemma and to berate others for failing to adhere to logic while deliberately using it yourself is a cynical and hypocritical argument.

slimvictor said:
...and if you don't have an answer for it, it means that you are so frozen by your own fear of being wrong...
Click to expand...
wow - now you're just getting nasty. you don't know me or anything about me so how about we drop the cheap ad-homs and assumptions about my personal life and focus on the issue. your behaviour devalues the discussion and is disappointing for a bluelight moderator.

alasdair
 
I stand by what I said.
While I agree with you that there are certain contexts in which it is not true that "LSD is stronger than cannabis", and it is important to point those out to people who cannot grasp them, there is also the necessity of recognizing that, in fact, given the vast majority of people's experiences, the blanket statement "LSD is stronger than cannabis" has some truth to it. First, it is important to qualify it - dosage, ROA, type of subject, etc. are all relevant. However, there is a second perspective, where a "normal" dose of LSD is stronger than a "normal" dose of cannabis.
By only adopting the first perspective, and failing to recognize what truth lies in the blanket statement, you are limiting yourself in your ability to communicate with many people, I would argue.

Whether my wanting you to choose between the scenarios of feeding your pet LSD or cannabis "devalues the discussion" or is "disappointing for a BL mod" is your opinion, though it is also an attack.
I doubt whether many others would agree with you, but I honestly could not care less.
I find it, and your attitude in general, to be ridiculous, and I believe that you enjoy picking arguments.
My opinion is that your refusal to answer such a simple question reveals your lack of ability to communicate successfully.
 
slimvictor said:
That is not one of the options. Why do you refuse to play the game? I think it is because you would have to admit that you would rather give cannabis to your pet than LSD, but you have no scientific backing for your opinion.
Click to expand...

fuckin hell, if this is the calibre of mod on bl these days, it's little wonder why so many bler's are fkn dying and this site is utterly failing in its harm reduction agenda.

bigben202 said:
It's closer than comparing giving chocolate to your dog which is known fatal, and giving pot to your dog which isn't. Is a taste of alcohol going to kill my kid? Think before you speak.
Click to expand...

It is not known how potentially harmful pot is on animals. "He seems to like it" is not giving any assurances of how it is affecting the dog's body or mind. YOUR child analogy was false, that's what i was pointing out. MY chocolate analogy was addressing how something seemingly completely safe can be completely not so. Now perhaps you should THINK before you speak a little. You sure as shit have demonstrated otherwise in this thread.

Please leave personal attacks and misogynistic profanity in the Lounge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My friend would put his kitty in the cabinet and hot box it, if he wasn't down he left. He rarely left. Never met a more mellow cat.
 
bigben said:
Yes I do know, as far as what I've researched about what effects different drugs have on animals and humans. Your'e the one assuming I'm just some dumb stoner. As far as giving an animal pot over acid, I don't have to take a poll and I'm sure you agree the latter is perverse. Smoking out your animals may be taboo, but justifying it by comparing isn't rationalizing my moral.
Click to expand...

It would appear that you didn't research very far, as cannabis contains a compound that gives dogs vertigo, while remaining inactive in humans, so it is pretty unambiguously unethical to drug a dog with pot. Lucky for your dog, though, blowing smoke at him or her is insufficient to deliver an active dose. Either he or she likes the smell (or you're just annoying your pet).

ebola
 
It should also be noted that non-primate animals don't self-administer cannabinoids in experiments, suggesting that they don't like it.

ebola
 
Holy crap. There is a vast difference between chocolate and cannabis. Theobromine is toxic to humans, we just have enough of the enzyme which metabolizes it harmlessly, dogs don't. THC is broadly thought not to be toxic to the mammalian nervous system, unless in MASSIVE doses. This might be applicable as mg/kg would be significantly higher in all but the biggest dogs. That's just how I'd chalk it up, it certainly isn't a stable enough thing for aby if this you're of debate.

Don't give your animals drugs, don't smoke your pet out, but it is certainly likely to be non-toxic and less intense of experience, or permanent, than lsd.

The comment about members dying potentially because of 'bad moderators', not teaching harm reduction is offensive. I see plenty of moderators saving peoples lives in TDS every day. Your comment is straight up blatant emotional appeal with drastically little substance.
 
Last edited:
L2R said:
your friend's a fuckhead.
Click to expand...
Duly noted.
ebola? said:
It should also be noted that non-primate animals don't self-administer cannabinoids in experiments, suggesting that they don't like it.

ebola
Click to expand...

Does that suggest they don't like it, or it is merely self limiting due to not lighting up typical reward circuits? I'm not disagreeing with you. It's just, when I smoked weed there is a point where I would not want to self administer more as well, although it was pleasant, there was a set-point.
 
L2R said:
fuckin hell, if this is the calibre of mod on bl these days, it's little wonder why so many bler's are fkn dying and this site is utterly failing in its harm reduction agenda.
Click to expand...

Don't know why you would want to lash out like that, both at me and at bluelight.
Do you really think BL is failing?
Do you really think that my comments are of such low calibre?
I don't agree on either account.
To use foul language to attack both me and BL, your negativity seems overwhelming.
We are not used to so much negativity here, so your anger really stands out.
But your personal attacks on bigben will need to be censored.
I am aware that you rank above me on BL, but I cannot permit such virulent personal attacks using such lewd words in DiTM.

If you believe that I have made a mistake in censoring your post, please feel free to PM me and explain that calling someone an "irresponsible cunt" is actually going by the rules. I will be happy to correct any mistakes I have made.
 
TheMiddleWay said:
Holy crap. There is a vast difference between chocolate and cannabis. Theobromine is toxic to humans, we just have enough of the enzyme which metabolizes it harmlessly, dogs don't. THC is broadly thought not to be toxic to the mammalian nervous system, unless in MASSIVE doses. This might be applicable as mg/kg would be significantly higher in all but the biggest dogs. That's just how I'd chalk it up, it certainly isn't a stable enough thing for aby if this you're of debate.

Don't give your animals drugs, don't smoke your pet out, but it is certainly likely to be non-toxic and less intense of experience, or permanent, than lsd.

The comment about members dying potentially because of 'bad moderators', not teaching harm reduction is offensive. I see plenty of moderators saving peoples lives in TDS every day. Your comment is straight up blatant emotional appeal with drastically little substance.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the support, and the clear summary of a sensible position on pets and drugs.
 
slimvictor said:
Don't know why you would want to lash out like that, both at me and at bluelight.
Do you really think BL is failing?
Do you really think that my comments are of such low calibre?
I don't agree on either account.
To use foul language to attack both me and BL, your negativity seems overwhelming.
We are not used to so much negativity here, so your anger really stands out.
But your personal attacks on bigben will need to be censored.
I am aware that you rank above me on BL, but I cannot permit such virulent personal attacks using such lewd words in DiTM.

If you believe that I have made a mistake in censoring your post, please feel free to PM me and explain that calling someone an "irresponsible cunt" is actually going by the rules. I will be happy to correct any mistakes I have made.
Click to expand...

@ L2R

What do you hope to accomplish by slinging insults and generally being a bother? If you're putting down people and potentially hurting feelings, it should stop. If you really think we're that bad, why don't you try to do something about it? As in, say, go and save those members that you think are being negatively affected here. All of this hate gets us nowhere.

I know I'm quite new compared to you but that doesn't give you the right to do what you're doing unchallenged.

I say these things because I like bluelight, I think it is a great harm reduction site and I can't think of a better one. This is in part due to the great people here that for the most part, treat each another with kindness. I don't think the mods or anyone else is responsible for members passing. I think we all know here that certain substances are pretty dangerous. I am not trying to make light of any passings, I am simply saying that drug use isn't inherently safe, this why we exist as a forum.

I hope we can move past all of this arguing very soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top