LSD thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
About to do a tab or 2
What things do you enjoy doing whilst on LSD?
>>24446307
One of the things i never enjoy is using words like "whilst" cause I'm not a faggot like you
Negative vibes man.
Put on some headphones, lay in bed, listen to the Flaming Lips, go somewhere inside yourself.
>>24446338
fuck off edgelord
Listening to peaceful music like the shire theme from the lord of the rings. Also I would recommend to watch game of thrones on acid.
>>24446386
fuck off faggat
>>24446307
Go watch some YouTube videos of babies crying or people rioting, so that your brain, made vulnerable by the drug, gets imprinted that such emotional displays are profound, so that you go to Facebook after your trip, stay there, share such emotional shit over there with your other druggie friends, and no more come to /r9k/, you normalfaggot.
>>24446436
What would happen if someone listened to actually challenging music during a trip and not mellow crap, actually went into a hostile environment, and the music actually included an intermittent reminder that 'you're experiencing a sense of uniqueness and profundity and complexity that's a delusion which is most likely going to stay with you after the trip regardless of this reminder'?
Oh wait, nobody knows, because literally none of hundreds of thousands of druggies whose awareness has been rent asunder and imagination multiplied and eyes thrown wide open somehow hadn't had the idea to do just that.
You're embarrassing.
>>24446338
The only thing I can think when I hear someone say "whilst"
Showering is really intense on acid. It's not just that bathrooms are automatic bad trips, but it's also filled with vapour, you're wet and alone and naked.
It always gets really intense as you feel vulnerable and your thoughts start to attack you, but it's a really good way to face yourself and see what you really think about what you're doing and what you can change. Take yourself seriously, talk to yourself seriously.
Then you can come out and listen to music and relax on the basis that you've dealt with the shit you've had to deal with.
>>24446650
>it's a really good way to face yourself and see what you really think about what you're doing and what you can change
>thinking the drug getting you to feel that you've cared too much is 'you' doing 'thinking'
Druggie naivete and lack of introspection is just too funny. Horrible to watch, but funny too.
>>24446650
this sounds good
my shower likes to go to max and min temperature randomly, so it's probably not a good idea until i move to somewhere with a reliable shower
>>24446693
>typecasting me as a druggie
>needing to create a strawman in order to argue
>can't stand having his worldview challenged because "they've got it all figured out, unlike these idiots"
ok. I'm gonna let you call me shallow based on not knowing me.
I tried it for the first time yesterday. I couldn't do anything because my mind was racing and I was speaking out loud to myself to follow it.
I did listen to some music and relax in bed and the music sounded great but it was hard to relax because I felt so light.
>>24446742
I've had much more druggies like yourself try to convince me that their changed priorities are 'objective understanding of themselves' than you have even talked to.
So, which one was it? You felt that others' expectations didn't matter? You felt that superficial appearances didn't matter? You felt that you can't count on others? You felt that you shouldnt've argued as much? What's been your degeneracy?
>>24446693
>>24446552
I don't know why you're so angry.
I'm doing this because I'm alone in a cold empty room on a winter Sunday.
LSD will make me happy and comfy.
If I was with a qt, laying on a sofa, with duvets wrapped around us, infront of a fireplace, I wouldn't need to take anything.
>>24446803
>I don't know why you're so angry.
That's what makes me angry. That you don't know that the root of my anger is your ignoranece of harmfulness of 'psychedelics'.
date soon probably
should I take a blotter beforehand?
how big is the chance that she'll notice?
>>24446822
Just spike her drink; she'll thank you for it later.
>I'm actually beginning to think that normies deserve this
>>24446814
How is it harmful to you if someone on 4chan takes LSD? Just hide this thread if you are offended.
>>24446814
>Normies taking drugs
>Normies having irrational and stupid arguments
>Getting angry
Come on man, we always knew normies were stupid, don't sink to their level.
>>24446846
>just ignore evil that makes people stupider, less driven, more comformist, more people-pleasing, more gullible, more paranoid, less culturally discriminate, less literal, and less curious
>>24446863
Yes, I would actually recommend ignoring it.
>>24446814
who am i harming?
>i'm not giving these to anyone else
>i'm not interacting with people whilst on them
>i'm not making any decisions that will effect other people whilst on them
i'd feel literally 0 happiness today if it wasn't for LSD, and I'll feel its positive afterglow for a few days afterwards.
the only person here that's doing harm is you, stop judging me for wanting to feel something
>>24446880
Well, it's not your fault that the drug's made you too unintrospective to notice the parallel between the cognitive insularism of 'everybody has his own reality and language and truth' and the moral insularism of 'everyone should only be concerned with his own life' that drugs both cause.
>>24446863
>any of these things
>inherent to lsd
Maybe except gullible, but that's only temporarily. If any, exactly the opposite is true for most of those things.
>>24446892
This is not true.
You WILL recommend LSD to other people as a remedy for literally anything rather than help them face, solve, notice, and invent problems.
>>24446794
I'm going to answer although I know you're just going to dismiss whatever I say just because I admit to doing one thing that you've deemed inexcusably degenerate. I'm not even a druggie, I don't even fucking smoke weed.
It's never about me vs other people in the few, handful of LSD experiences I've had over the last few years, it's about if I'm doing what I need to do in order to accomplish my longterm goals. It's about me trying to pinpoint my bad habits, things I should work on so that I can more efficiently pursue my ambitions. It's by no means the stoner philosophy of being right and everyone else being a dupe while they sit comfortably on their pseudo-intellectual ivory tower. It's specifically about making me afraid and uncomfortable so that I can no longer ignore the pitfalls of my personality.
I do it while sober, just like I spend the overwhelming majority of my time sober. I do it while I lay awake in bed overcome with anxiety, or as I manically avoid making eye contact with everyone else when they try to talk to me. Acid just helped me a little bit by saying "for the next eight hours, it's just us and our thoughts," and then taking away every single safety I can find in life, particularly being alone. It rubbed my face in my own shortcomings and offered no escape for the time it has a hold on you.
>>24446863
>I REALIZED THAT THE UNIVERSE AND CONSCIOUSNESS ARE CONNECTED...
>smart
>I REALIZED THAT I SHOULD APPRECIATE THE SMALL THINGS IN LIFE MORE
>driven
>I UNDERSTOOD I SHOULD BE LESS AFRAID TO TALK ABOUT MY FEELINGS
>non-conformist
>STOP JUDGING THE VALIDITY OF OTHERS' EXPERIENCES
>critical
>WHY ARE YOU DISMISSING NATURAL MEDICINE
>skeptical
>EDUCATION IS DESIGNED TO MAKE YOU AVOID THINKING
>ortonoid
>I LEARNED TO APPRECIATE ALL GENRES OF MUSIC NOW
>artistically discriminate
>LSD IS ONLY LIKE THE PATH FOR THE TOOL, NOT THE TOOL ITSELF
>literal
(As of lack of curiosity, it's inexpressible verbally by definition.)
Oh, druggies...
>>24447018
Oops, meant to quote >>24446919 as well.
>>24446924
I have 4 friends, and i wouldn't talk to anyone other than these people about it.
1 is the guy who i'm trying new drugs with for fun
1 is the guy who introduced me to drugs
the other 2 i wouldn't recommend them to, he and she are pure and naturally happy.
i don't even know what im saying anymore, but you're talking shit
>>24446931
Exceptionally innocuously phrased, even for a druggie, I'll grant you that.
But the effects of >>24447018 still all apply.
>>24446863
>all these citations
>>24447018
>Hippie bullshit
>Nice one you spoilt teen who just grew up
>You stopped basing your life around action films
>Literally not critical
>Natural medicine is proven to be shit, except an odd placebo affect it is useless
>Obviously not a STEM student
>Not realising some people put more time and effort in then others, and some don't deserve appreciation
>Hippie bullshit
Good lord if you anyone thinks these kinds of thoughts show higher thinking they are too far gone. It shows how shallow and stupid they were before hand, and the fact they had to take drugs to realise it shows what a waste of oxygen they are.
>>24447036
>>24447018
wew lad, you just typed nonsensical shit in all caps to disprove my point. Way to go!
anti lsd 1 - lsd 0
>>24447064
>the other 2 i wouldn't recommend them to
Bookmark http://desustorage.org/r9k/thread/24446307/#24447064 , read it in five years, and remember that it is I, not you, who will have wept for their pureness your eventual conviction that they try it's lost.
Can we all just agree that druggies and fat people are insufferable?
>>24447108
>It shows how shallow and stupid they were before hand
Oh, are we at the cliche carousel/fallacy ferrywheel already?
'Drugs magically only make stupider people who're stupid, but leave intact people with IQ > 115.'?
>>24447125
because they're going to be scabby meth addicts, covered in their own shit, just because a friend of theirs takes LSD to feel happy
>>24447155
Ignoring how useless IQ tests as a whole are, anyone who is actually intelligent wouldn't take drugs on a regular basis to be "happy" or "more informed", so yes drugs would leave the smart intact, and give the stupid some kind of "Hey Bro I just learnt something outside the box, education is bad, government is bad, hippie shit" nonsense they can dribble out to some other druggies.
>>24447087
>live in the Nazi regime
>'On IQ tests, Jews would score much above Germans.'
>'Do you have any citations for that?'
>>24447065
Idiots are going to be idiots, sober or on LSD. There's no drug you can give them that'll make them less of an idiot. If you give them a hammer, they'll use it to bash someone's head in instead of building a house. That's not the hammer's fault, that's them being idiots.
Idiots are comfortable with drugs because it ties them with other idiots who are desperate to feel like they're just counter-cultural geniuses. It's the armchair pot philosopher, and yeah it's the fat sweaty DUDE SHROOMS DUDE ACID DARK SIDE OF THE MOON idiots. They were idiots before the drug and they'll continue to be idiots. They can't see depth for the life of them.
But if you're not an idiot, and you're genuinely curious about an experience, and you're smart about it and smart about yourself, always avoiding to fall into the mistakes the idiots make, you never know, you might actually walk away with something new.
I've never recommended acid to anybody because I don't want it to be used to listen to Tame Impala and talk about "our journey into ourselves and nature... man" because that's bullshit, that's some tourist shallow bullshit that has nothing to do with nothing. But for me, with how I've used it, it's really helped shake me up from this cycle of self-pity and self-loathing by terrifying me into action. It hasn't fixed my problems, but it did help me respect myself a tiny bit more and take myself a little bit more seriously, enough to cut out a few bad habits.
For instance, the last trip was about me and smoking cigarettes. I picked up smoking cigarettes because I was scared of drinking and I needed something to do without looking like an idiot, and it also lets you take a break away from everyone else. The trip was 8 hours of my brain yelling at me all my repressed thoughts: you only started smoking to look cool, you look like an idiot, you're ruining your health, throwing away money. It was terrifying, enough so that I've quit for a year now.
>>24447231
>I have no proof of anything I say
>>24447239
You're a stubborn piece of shit.
You're smart enough to know better than show in public the side of yours whereby you try to silence arguments with 'why are you wasting your breath over such petty things?', where you smugly comment under your breath that 'there's still more you don't know than you know', when you recommend people psychological rather than neurological literature, and so on.
I hate people like you specially.
The first timr I took LSD was when I was walking around a port and was thinking the water was space and the ships and boats are spaceships and fighters. Then I saw 2 planets colliding
>>24447311
All the while partaking, quite likely consciously, in the most conspicuous and embarrassing fallacies, such as the binary thinking of 'idiots are going to be idiots' -- which is one of those so blatantly false, people think their significance lies somewhere than its truth value, but that's another story.
considering going to the zoo/cemetery while tripping or alternatively the aquarium/art gallery. Which would be a better option?
>>24447394
Go to the cemetery and get spooked and fucked in the ass by a ghost
>>24447394
>going to the zoo in the summer sounds so amazing
you can pet and stroke all the animals
all so soft and cute
>>24447310
>have three family members fall ill
>seek treatment for them
>'it is not a disease, there are no studies about any disease with such symptoms'
You think you understand the scientific process, too, right?
>>24447311
>>24447343
I really don't see where I said "there's still more you don't know than you," and I haven't recommended anyone anything so far. What's the problem here?
I just think that if you want to learn about the universe, go ahead and study the universe, acid isn't going to reveal the cosmos to you. All that emotional "dude the trees are singing the song of life" shit is really just superficial drug talk. All acid does for me is turn my problems into a scenario where I have to solve them in real time. Self-enduced nightmares. What I walk away with is usually the tools to deal with my issues.
You realize most people DON'T like to think, right? Most people don't really like their worldviews challenged, most people don't cultivate many interests, most people don't really experience a drive in their lives. Most people just hone in on pleasure and stay there, comfortably, forever, only briefly surfacing in panic here and there. That's what I mean by idiots. I don't believe in doing anything just for pleasure.
But all right, as far as the binary idea of "idiots are going to be idiots," what's your opinion?
>>24447453
Except nobody has any symptoms
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063972
>>24446307
just watch off the air or listen to music. Just don't go out of your comfort zone or you'll have a bad time. Also if it's bitter it's a spitter
>>24447490
smoking pot and lsd go together like pb&j also for some reason you should eat before you do it but for me I've always tried it on an empty stomach and I feel like it hit me harder. my friend ate something before and barfed
>>24446307
You know whats funny? The fact all these acid threads start showing up on 4chan after NBOMEs were being sold as research chemicals .
You're probably not doing acid. And you're probably frying you're brain whatever you're taking, because it is probably NOT actual LSD,
>>24447534
>after NBOMEs were being sold as research chemicals .
Care to explain?
>>24447458
>as far as the binary idea of "idiots are going to be idiots," what's your opinion?
It is impossible to have an opinion on something that's only true when you're an immaterial druggie like yourself who never thinks in terms of matter.
Idiocy is defined, well, with IQ, but otherwise by a handful of brain functions, such as frequency of:
>impression of conceptual equivalence (ranging from 'that we're all one is true in the same sense of "true" as 2 + 2 = 5' to 'are you going now? -- yes, yes, right now, just a couple of minutes')
>conviction in a causation (ranging from 'it was not an accident that I saw him twice here' to 'it's not an accident that life has evolved human intelligence')
>reacting emotionally to the direct instinctive stimuli rather than abstracting it (ranging from feeling about somebody's expression and intonation rather than remembering the arrangement of facial muscles and sonic pitch, to in discussion preferring to ask 'why are we discussing this anyway?' rather than participate in it on equal terms)
And so on.
Every single intake of 'psychedelics' by every single person causes aggravation of those, for denying which you are an idiot, no matter your belated acknowledgement I am right.
>>24447547
the truth is actual LSD is hard to come by even on the darknet there is a high chance that the "acid" you got is research chemicals. It's kinda like with blow everybody says they got pure but if you aren't the one making the coke then you know it's already been cut
>>24447582
This is straight up wrong if you order from a reputable seller.
>>24447553
>all these citations
>>24447553
>in discussion preferring to ask 'why are we discussing this anyway?' rather than participate in it on equal terms
This, in fact, is another brain impairment, namely of excitement for breaking the established context; religious people epitomize this, in particular Buddhists ('why is that cat... -- no, no don't get lost in words, remember that there's a reality beyond words around us at all times'). Drugs make this worse as well; exactly thence the mass of vapid claims that 'they make you realize that your whole worldview might've been wrong'.
>>24447595
hahaha okay and tor isn't a honeypot
>>24447595
>>all these citations
As I said, you have already proven that you don't understand the scientific method. You are only embarrassing yourself more.
>>24447595
And as for your silly paper which defines mental illness as affective disorders in the first place...
>>24447625
Do you have a single fact to back that up
>>24447631
>psychadelics make people sick
>who?
>JUST BELIEVE ME BRO
>>24447668
>your paper is irrelevant
>but I still don't have one lol
>>24447605
>...mass of vapid claims that 'they make you realize that your whole worldview might've been wrong'
Is there a moment in which one can doubt their worldview as wrong, or is the mere act of discussing something as typically pointless as "a worldview" (an inescapably contrived attempt at describing the innumerable complexities in the world in purely human, unempirical terms) really just an exersize in futility?
>>24447674
>>24447701
I request you to sneak into your dad's room, take the revolver, and shoot yourself. No study has ever found the link between shooting yourself and death.
>>24447713
>getting this assflustered over the fact that you can't actually prove anything that you're saying without anecdotes
>>24447708
Good post. (What a relief to see one in a druggie thread.)
Yes, the whole concept of a 'worldview' is worthless, as is 100% of druggie vocabulary, such as 'consciousness', 'self', 'reality', 'understanding', 'knowledge', 'connection', and so on. I stopped using those words years ago, except in compounds of course. The breaking of conceptual boundaries (every now and then accompanied, misinterpreted, by that fancy colourful pic of connections in the brain set in a circle) makes the brain after a trip believe that claims using those concepts are true and not even wrong.
>>24447766
>true and not even wrong
*as opposed to not even wrong
>>24447777
Trip-quads wasted on a correction...
daily reminder not to fall for The Anti-Buddha's tricks
>>24447766
>after being called a druggie for the last million posts I am rewarded with a "good post" thumbs up
Thanks, Dad. Can't do it without your support.
You know what, we've arrived at something true and I'm glad we've had this discussion. The idea of a "worldview" is really more of a reflection of personality and personally (not rationally, discussable) held views rather than an empirical understand of things.
However, the foothold of these arguments is the other side of the human coin, the fact that our experiences are also emotional experiences, and that we're also built to inspect emotions and not just natural phenomena. Would you posit that examining emotions and emotional experiences, outside of a neurological or physiological viewpoint (but instead seeing them through the "human" side and not the empirical side) is really just bunk? Where does this leave the value of art?
>>24447879
The answer to this is disappointingly simple.
Understanding the structure of something doesn't take from appreciating it emotionally, but drug-induced emotionality precludes pursuit of understanding.
If I look at a painting and remember the stages at which the composition was laid out, or the chemical composition of the pigments, or the historical context which determined the significance of this or that building in the background, or that the effect of light was applied by increasing the contrast between leaves in the tree... I can still relate to the total effect. Comprehension doesn't prevent appreciation. Similarly with, for instance, human feelings. You can still be moved by a movie despite remembering the neurochemicals involved, or a poem despite remembering words' Germanic etymologies.
But a druggie whom drugs prompt to 'just appreciate people more' and 'just appreciate life more' will get stuck; will be attracted to people who just won't point things like the above to them, nor will he want to listen, calling it 'soulless'.
>>24447991
>You can still be moved by a movie despite remembering the neurochemicals involved
*in the characteres' behavior
>>24447991
And again, no, 'normies gonna normie' is not applicable. (Un)emotionality is not a binary, immutable trait of -1 vs 1.
Another psychedelics thread ruined by the anti Buddha.
>>24448040
And I, somewhat surprisingly, really do hope that you won't invoke the free will cop-out, 'you can control the effects of the drug on your emotionality'. You may control this or that in your life, but drugs control the controller. 'Quis custodiet.'
>>24447991
I completely agree that comprehension doesn't prevent appreciation and I'm glad it didn't become a discussion of "muh science is better than some faggy paintings," because that would've been a very disappointing finish to it all.
As well as all those empty notions you list, yeah I've never been one to tolerate them either, especially not when the speaker is in a drugged-out state.
But I've never argued in favor of the empty notions of "just appreciate life more" and so. I just said it helped me quit smoking and it's helped me stop ignoring my repressed thoughts. I probably could've learned to do either of them without LSD (there's no point in avoiding it: there's nothing indispensable about it at all) but I (in all my imperfection) had fallen into a habit of not doing either, something which my brain under the stress of the trip berated me for.
Would you for instance say that the result (which is probably enabled to a certain extent by the nature of the trip) is nullified simply because it was achieved while under a drug? Or are you more worried of side ramifications of using the drug?
>>24448086
I could just report those threads under global 1, you know.
>>24448116
For all your consciously adopted, courteous-despite-the-crudeness-of-the-other-chatter demeanour, I did not miss how your suggestion that I might oppose drug-induced effects just because they're drug induced was just a low 'retributive' jab.
Well, I *could* use the utilitarian argument -- that the cognitive insularism (druggies constantly hammering 'everyone has his own truth, there's no objective reality, only the consensual reality' into people's heads), desire to outsmart others with platitudes at the expense of participation in problem-solving (taking a problem as a mere opportunity to say that 'problem-solving is this or that'), decreased awareness of flaws ('you look great in this dress!' vs 'I've read some people are allergic to this material...', choosing facts sources on the basis of the personality of the presenter, ...), disinterest of facts in favour of psychology and religion, will harm the society (as it will).
But I don't like it, not only because of its subjectivity/disputability (though it's hardly subjective). I just think the druggie priorities are fundamentally misplaced. They're like the proverbial normie who says 'you can stop being depressed, it's all in your head, your psyche is all there is, just snap out of it, you must remember that only YOU can change your life, only the present moment exists'... all at the expense of taking a single step outside and realizing that objectively, in terms of hard facts, within the material framework, those exhortations are just a prompt that will in most likelihood fail to help that person at all (whereas there are other plausible ways to do that).
>>24448293
>I just think the druggie priorities are fundamentally misplaced
But that's never been an argument. You said druggies I said idiots (and then we talked about idiocy for a while) but as far as I can tell, their focus on platitudes bothers both of us.
Also, asking if you oppose drug-induced effects just because their drug induced was by no means a "retributive" jab on my part and I genuinely didn't intend it to be taken as that. I just wanted to see if we were done talking about the drug itself and instead we were talking about the more harmful culture around the drug (the druggies again) and how they've formed a symbiotic relationship. That, coupled with the potentially harmful effects of the drug, is not a problem area as we seem to agree.
>>24448415
Well, then the problem remains that you seem to think of the two camps as fixed, 'rational people' vs 'irrational druggies/idiots', failing to consider the power for the latter to affect the former as it grows (which it does). Consider e.g. the ideological academic denial of validity of IQ testing, or of innate human differences. Has it not affected the social, educational, and perhaps even international policy? Now imagine the same happens with 'psychedelics', 'philosophy' and psychology courses slowly displacing scientific courses. Imagine they're going to hammer in the very thought-terminators that druggies come up with spontaneously, such as 'all definitions are arbitrary and relative', 'intellect is not everything', 'morality is arbitrary', 'no belief can be 100% proven, 'we have free will and responsibility for abuse of substance lies in the user, not in the substance', 'language is not the only way to communicate', and so on. This is not far-fetched.
>>24448514
Or, I just remembered two more druggie staples, 'true knowledge is experiential; you don't know something until you try it yourself' and 'generalizations are wrong'. Multiply that and >>24448514 by 1,000 universities and 10,000 high schools.
>>24448514
>"Now imagine the same happens with 'psychedelics', 'philosophy' and psychology courses slowly displacing scientific courses."
That's again a problem with druggies and not the drugs. Are you saying LSD has made them worse or empowered them? Is the problem then that the popularity of drugs has made more of these people and these people have become more vocal?
I probably do believe that drug usage has made more of these people and it has definitely made them more vocal and we can really, really see the ramifications (as described by you) taking place in the world. Was this the heart of the argument all along?
>>24448086
this
thanks for the warning family
>>24448612
>That's again a problem with druggies and not the drugs.
So you too believe in free will, or at least pretend to, blaming the individual victims of a substance so to justify the real agent to which you are emotionally attached. Literally sad.
>'Diseases don't kill people, people just choose to drop dead after they catch them, please think of the viruses!'
>Was this the heart of the argument all along?
It's hard to separate pity for particular people from concern for the society.
>>24448659
>>24448612
In other words, you might not be aware of this, but you're shifting the responsibility. Instead of working at eliminating 'psychedelics', you just delude yourself that it's choices and not causes that entail the consequences, and, impliedly, that it's enough to wag your finger at druggies, 'be rational'.
>>24448676
>that it's enough to wag your finger at druggies, 'be rational'
Which is basically the old nature vs nurture, except nature is here brain chemistry and not genes.
It all comes back to this.
>>24446360
i couldn't recommend this enough. tripped to the first time on LSD, almost cried from the amount of warmth and euphoria i was experiencing. i didnt cry because there were other things going on but if i had been just lying down somewhere looking in the sky, i wouldve cried pretty hard
>>24448676
>>24448659
So drugs create druggies and druggies harm society?
This is demonstrably true. But I think you're overestimating how many druggies is creates. But sure, as long as it creates even just a few druggies, it still causes net damage instead of at best a balanced situation. Removing psychedelics would remove druggies, all right. (I'd really argue this more about weed, I think the damage caused by weed is much, much more worrisome than that caused by LSD)
Some of these troublesome people aren't druggies though, they're just like that naturally, so even eradicated psychedelics wouldn't solve the problem, but at least you've tackled a part of it. What do you think is the problem with them, and how would you go about it? (Or is there no solution?)
Is there a way we can do this where you don't insult me, by the way? I hardly think it's necessary and I've done my best to remain polite.
>>24448755
I swear, if one of you abducts me after all and administers me 'psychedelics' the way you promise you will, I will request to listen to some technical death metal throughout just to see what happens.
Where 2 get LSD?
South Eastern USA
>>24448814
this isnt google and you're and idiot if you cant find it.
>>24448803
No, it's you who underestimates the snowball effect.
Cannabis mostly makes you passive; not really like 'psychedelics' which make you preachy about the importance of passivity sold as activity (e.g., selling 'no situation can be judged because there are always factors involved that you are not aware of' as insight and not cowardly, populist justification of avoiding forming and testing hypotheses).
>What do you think is the problem
The problem... 's definition has been dispersed by me over some hundred threads.
But at the very root of it is (1) increased interpersonal empathy and (2) preoccupation with the... not really 'overabstraction', because abstraction is good when it is directed (e.g. when you abstract the human circulatory or respiratory system into production and passage of bodies and pressures...). Preoccupation with, as much as I hate the prefix, meta-discussion. Rather than talking about matter, you talk about how talking about matter has its limitations, and so on. This is the gist of the gist.
>Or is there no solution?
There is no solution. Momentum has been gained, the Western civilization is over. Muslims will not have ended it; they will just have used the opportunity. Buddhists will have, by preoccupying it with introspection to the detriment of factual education. Only individuals can be educated.
>>24448803
>Is there a way we can do this where you don't insult me, by the way? I hardly think it's necessary and I've done my best to remain polite.
Also no, fuck you, you scumbag/drugbag (there's no difference). You should literally, literally die. That this post is an addendum, and that I've been talking at you, does not change this fact.
>>24448997
>Google gives results that help you find Class A drugs in your area
>>24449071
>hey guys this is my first time on 4chan where do i find lsd???
>>24449091
>not knowing where to get drugs makes you a newfag
Nice deduction there, kiddo.
>>24449024
>But at the very root of it is (1) increased interpersonal empathy... (2) preoccupation with the meta-discussion
On the 2nd point I agree wholeheartedly and we can leave it at that, but I'm most curious to hear you expand on how the problem has been at it's root caused by increased interpersonal empathy and how an increased interpersonal empathy is at the end of the day negative for society.
>There is no solution. Momentum has been gained, the Western civilization is over. Muslims will not have ended it; they will just have used the opportunity. Buddhists will have, by preoccupying it with introspection to the detriment of factual education. Only individuals can be educated.
We'll see, but it's way too soon to tell. There's always doomsayers.
I came to peace with being bisexual while masturbating to gay porn while tripping hard on LSD. So there's that.
LSD may make you gay (or make you face dark truths about your self that you may not be ready for).
>>24449176
What if you only fap to cute traps, but not manly men?
>how an increased interpersonal empathy is at the end of the day negative for society
The root of this misunderstanding is, as always, immaterialism. Namely, the fact that people see people not as brains ('psychedelics' have a special way to cause this), but as some sort of magical sets of traits into and from which traits can come and go with no collisions. A normalfag reads something makes you empathetic? Oh, no problem, chpsy +empathetic ./self . Something makes you tolerant? Awesome, chpsy -intolerance ./self . This is closely related to the odious belief in free will.
But in reality, traits are exclusive with each other. When you become empathetic, your brain, empathy being a function of it, will just not tend to operate on other data you see. When you see a smiling child, you will just not tend to notice that he has a skin condition and ask the parents, 'what is it? is it genetic?', so that you can learn about it, and possibly contribute to research against it. Instead you will just smile at him, because that's all that crosses your mind. Or, even if the question occurs to you, you will not ask it because it's 'offensive' -- the idea of 'offensive' having been implanted into you by people who condemn such questions. Vulnerability to such implanting is empathy. Drugs, again, cause it both directly and indirectly, through leading you to associate with empathetic people. (Same with 'meditation', by the way.)
Extrapolate it to the degree you should be able to and you'll see the consequences on the national level.
>There's always doomsayers.
You mean DMT-sellers.
>>24449289
Oops, >>24449150.
>missinglinkblox
>>24449289
>When you become empathetic, your brain, empathy being a function of it, will just not tend to operate on other data you see.
Any chance you can pass on some literature on this? I'm having a really hard time believing it at face value. Any studies I can check out?
>DMT-sellers
You're the guy that's saying society's over.
>>24449636
>Any chance you can pass on some literature on this? I'm having a really hard time believing it at face value. Any studies I can check out?
Look.
There's a stranglehold dogma that IQ is meaningless and intelligence is innate/impossible to define/(choose your own justification for dismissing the notion). There's a whole religion defining awareness as self-absorption. There is a whole media propaganda machine telling us that 'psychedelics' are harmless tools for introspection.
In this climate, do you honestly expect the academia to (1) define awareness unambiguously as perception of facts and formation of hypotheses about your environment, and then to actually (2) pit it against the mankind's God-sent manna, namely 'psychedelics'?
Won't happen.
All I can do is give you more examples.
>When you look at a sea, does your brain latch on 'how vast! how serene!', or is it bored and looks for patterns of waves as a sign of possible tides?
>When you look at a cat, does it latch on 'how cute!', or does it wonder about the mechanism of conditional expression of tissue-constructing genes so that its skull is symmetrical?
>When you hear a druggie say that 'the most important thing in life is to find what's important to you personally', does it latch onto recollection of your desires of happiness or love, or does it wonder about the causes of his reluctance to discuss the environmental and evolutionary causes of various desires in particular people?
>>24449822
>A bunch of annectdotal evidence with no evidence backing except what you've already said
>ZERO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND TO SHOW
I'm really sorry, but if there's NO proof you can show me relating to this incredibly counter-intuitive idea you're pushing (humans can only see things through one lens at a time) I'm going to have to ask what the hell you based all of this off of except your own personally held-notions and self-observed details?
I'm looking for empirical evidence, the shit we've been arguing about all along. This is not very satisfying.
>>24449965
>humans can only see things through one lens at a time
Still dichotomizing, I see. Of course the modes co-occur.
Also, good job joining >>24447087 in failing to understand the scientific method.
>>24449998
>Of course the modes co-occur.
>When you become empathetic, your brain, empathy being a function of it, will just not tend to operate on other data you see.
>I can make contradictory statements and then complain when I am asked to see at least some evidence behind the science I'm arguing
We're right back to arguing about opinions and feelings. Good chat though.
>>24450063
>a + b = 1
>no that's not true, I know cases where either 0 > (a or b) < 1, you're retarded
You are a druggie, after all. It's always the same with druggies. Sooner or later, but always.
>evidence behind the science
The bitter hilarity behind your error of which you're unaware is that if everyone reasoned like you want people to, there would in the most literal sense of the word be no science at all.
>>24450063
Specifically, your errors are:
>arbitrary rejection of discussion of causal mechanisms
>arbitrary demarcation between 'proven' and 'unproven' hypotheses (in practice used by druggies to reject studies, one might add)
>arbitrary blanket rejection of extrapolation/generalization without realizing that it is an absolutely fundamental function of cognition ('no, this study doesn't mean anything, those druggies are different in some unspecified manner to real druggies, it's not comparable!')
Oh well. Good luck on your PhD which you're undoubtedly going to get. I just wouldn't want you to be my advisor... or anyone else's.
>>24450310
The first one is most intellectually shameful, though.
>'There is a mechanism.'
>'Are there studies confirming it?'
>'No you moron, why would anyone observe mechanisms that've already been established?'
>'Oh I'm not listening then lalala.'
watch every episode the last man on earth
>>24450438
In other words, you want to egoistically force people into discussion of safe, 'proven' (incidentally see >>24450310 point #2) subjects, just so to remain in the intellectual comfort zone. You're hampering progress just to avoid cognitive dissonance. Fucking druggie coward. I'm discovering the depth of odium I'd never fathomed.
>>24450480
And I know you want to call this 'unscientific'. Except my claims, unlike druggie claims, are 100% falsifiable.
>>24446307
Take a shower.
I like doing this when I'm on LSD to be quite honest family original post fuckkkk
>>24450675
You really think showering during a trip is so common that you need a blox?
Fuck, the society's even more drugged than I thought.
How the fuck do I get hold of some? I realy want to try it (low dose) but have no idea where to go.
>>24446307
the packers are playing today
>>24451036
Unless you have a circle of friends in that scene or you're incredibly lucky, then darkmarkets.
>>24450144
I've always found your posts hilarious (assuming you're the same guy who shits up drugs threads here occasionally).
There's just something about someone trying so hard to maintain the facade of an "intellectual debate" yet being so thoroughly entrenched in their own views (whilst ad-homineming the fuck out of the opposition with arbitrary labels) that really represents the spirit of 4chan, thank you anon.
>>24451225
Well, at least I'm not a druggie, who, experience mercilessly shows, genuinely believe that 'not being entrenched in one's views' (that is, 'being open-minded, for apparently, miraculously, usage of that phrase hasn't yet become a laughable red flag) is *sufficient* for being an intellectual.
>>24451401
>>24451225
And as for 'narrow-mindedness', I am open to all and every hypothesis.
Emphasis on HYPOTHESIS.
Druggie ramblings on self-understanding are not hypotheses.
>>24451401
Thanks for exemplifying my post.
>>24451459
No problem. Always a pleasure for me to describe in a post of mine what druggies like you do, e.g. in >>24451225.
>>24451448
Have you had any personal issues with drug abusers in your life? I'm curious as to where all this "druggie" hate comes from.
>>24451492
Apart from being called obsessed, autistic, disordered, paranoid, schizophrenic, and having as many of my personal details as I had ever decided to reveal circulated on /r9k/, together with insistence that I am literally the person that needs 'psychedelics' most, and assertions they'd feed me them if they had a chance? No, not really.
>>24451485
What do you get out of posting in these threads? Surely you realize that your pointless hostility and laughable generalizations mean no one really takes you seriously? Hell, if anything I would think that people who are neutral towards drugs may even be pushed to try them after seeing someone get so autistically enraged about their use.
>>24451546
Then what fuels your crusade? Why are you so passionate about your hate for "druggies"? I'm going to assume that you haven't had very much contact with drug users in real life, and I've heard all about your "research" conducted via online questioning of users (again assuming you're who I think you are), so why is this such a big issue for you?
>>24451552
I? Nothing.
You? Something I hope.
>generalizations
>'They're--'
>'GENERALIZATIONS!'
>'Some of them're--'
>'GENERALIZATIONS!'
'Some of them're some of the time--'
>'GENERALIZATIONS!'
>'Some of them're some of the time in some circumstances--'
>'GENERALIZATIONS!'
>'Some of them're some of the time in some aspects of some circumstances--'
>'GENERALIZATIONS!'
>'Under some definitions, some of them're some of the time in some aspects of some circumstances--'
>'STOP BEING SO FUCKING VERBOSE HOLY SHIT!'
No thank you.
>>24451607
A part of the reason is that they cheapen the definitions of understanding with respect to their experiences, to the effect of leading people who are capable of true understanding to exert themselves less.
With e.g. Buddhists it is the same, plus hypocrisy.
>>24451705
>to the effect of leading people who are capable of true understanding to exert themselves less
Well, not only that. There's inherent injustice in referring to druggie bullcrap as 'self-understanding', thus equating their feelings with competency of neurocognitive scientists. But that's not something a druggie can understand.
>>24451620
>You? Something I hope.
Really? You actually think you're helping your own cause here?
>that entire mess
Except that isn't what's happening at all? I've seen you in many threads (again, assuming your identity) outright claiming that ALL drug use DEFINITELY causes the things you say. Hell, I've even tried to start a meaningful conversation with you my own observations of the effects of drug use/abuse on certain people only to have my own views immediately discarded as the ramblings of a "druggie".
If you came here talking about how psychedelics can negatively effect some peoples mental health and worldview then (most) people would probably agree with you, at least most reasonable users. But you don't do that, you come here spewing arbitrary hate even at people who partially agree with you.
I mean, I agree with many of your points (hamfistedly presented as they are) but your arbitrary anger towards me and others really just makes you seem like an ass, rather than someone worthy of reasonable conversation.
>>24451745
So you're saying that the works on the self by every single philosopher and thinker throughout history has been nonsense because they didn't have access to modern neuroscientific knowledge?
>>24451705
I completely agree that they have this effect on some people, the same way certain people will allow alcohol to fuck up their lives and personalities, but can you not see that shitting up drug threads with hate is anathema to your cause?
>>24451762
Your fallacy (boring, boring, boring to again open a post with those two...) is that you confuse variable degree with universal vulnerability. Drugs impair *variably*, but they impair *everyone*.
Also, even if this weren't true, YOU would only use the 'only some users...' phrase not to be truthful, but to leave a justification for everyone who wants to try it, by getting them to think 'maybe I'm smart enough not to be impaired', 'maybe I'm one of the predestined ones'. You're basically daring.
>>24451802
Is this an attempt to catch me at perceived hypocrisy re. generalization? No, unlike drugs which impair everyone, presumably not all 'philosophers' have been religious people. I'd say 97%-98% of them were, though.
>>24451842
>your cause
I have no cause, and if I had, it would be already lost. I just point out.
>>24451900
>you confuse variable degree with universal vulnerability. Drugs impair *variably*, but they impair *everyone*.
Do you have evidence for this? In my (quite extensive) personal experience of people using psychedelic drugs, the vast majority of which will go on afterwards absolutely unchanged by the experience. Yes, they they will at the time feel these notions of grand universal truth and all that shit, but afterwards they will acknowledge it as the serotogenic flurry of emotion that comes with the drugs and continue on unaffected.
What exactly are you basing this claim that they impair "everyone" on?
>Also, even if this weren't true, YOU would only use the 'only some users...' phrase not to be truthful, but to leave a justification for everyone who wants to try it, by getting them to think 'maybe I'm smart enough not to be impaired', 'maybe I'm one of the predestined ones'. You're basically daring.
What? Now you're just randomly ascribing negative things about what I said that you've literally just made up. Do you read your own posts? You're saying that "even if you were right and I was wrong, YOU'RE STILL AN EVIL DRUGGIE AND I HATE YOU"
>No, unlike drugs which impair everyone
You keep on saying this, please at least attempt to back it up?
Talking to someone I really like is probably #1, especially while doing some passive activity with them. ie; walking, video games.
Walking around looking at various things is good, so is lying down and looking upward.
Music is nice, when you can find something that's "just right". Otherwise I find it frustrating.
Video games are also good. Movies too, if they're "suitable".
Really it just makes everything that is not very complicated a lot more enjoyable.
>>24452067
The intuitively (not for certain types of people incl. druggies, apparently) laughable notion of the brain as a black box capable of magical immunity to chemical change aside...
https://google.com/search?q="LSD|shrooms|mushrooms|psychedelic|psychedelics * rewire|change your|the brain" good enough for you?
The druggie's goldfish-tier memory with respect to consistency is almost endearing.
>>24452127
>laughable notion of the brain as a black box capable of magical immunity to chemical change
When did I say anything like this? I am by no means claiming that the brain is impenetrable to chemical change, but that the brain is complex enough to allow for massive nuances in the subjective cognitive effects that certain chemical changes will bring.
Also, did you just link a google search? What point were you trying to make there?
>>24447018
I do a lot of drugs (LSD included) and say/feel none of these.
I do them because they are fun. They feed me chemicals and briefly make me feel nice. Sometimes this nice feeling allows me to progress towards real-life goals, because some things are easier to handle high. It's self-medicating or cheating or something along those lines; a crutch, a vice, a coping mechanism.
I'm enjoying the ride right now but I know it's not sustainable.
>>24452127
>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/magic-mushrooms-may-help-treat-depression-how/
...When I see such willful ignorance ('oh it just makes you think a little differently', just as 'meditation' is called 'oh just calming yourself a bit'), I feel just powerless. Not about myself, but about people who would still accomplish things artistically, intellectually, and who could help others accomplish such things as well, but instead are being made religious drones, and believe that they have just understood themselves better.
>>24452273
My only consolation is that after my death, and after the singularity, the AI will explain the neurology of 'psychedelics', the populism and crab mentality of Buddhism, the catatonic consequences of 'meditation'. I just hope that the gulity will not be condemned to a damnatio memoriae; their names should be known.
>>24446307
Listen to music, especially properly dynamic music that will set emotions in movement. I've cried at "Child in Time" by Deep Purple, for example, while tripping, that is. I also love drawing, generally being creative, and playing the classical guitar, but I'm guessing you're not a classical guitarist. Also, closed-eyed philosophy. The visuals are less distracting inside your eyelids, though they can be pretty intense.
If you somehow manage, try to masterbate- I managed to finish once, and it didn't feel sexual, it just felt like I hit an endorphone release button. I tripped like crazy afterwards-
>>24452417
>drawing, generally being creative
Tip: micromanaging a drawing by drawing single squiggly lines twice the length of the circumference of the piece of paper is not 'artistic creativity', it's the opposite of it: yielding to the first suggestion of a visually appealing motif your brain comes up with with no ideas at all to subvert it, even as trivially as by drawing a single diagonal line across the entire picture.
Fuck's sake.
>>24446307
The world would be a better place without people like this.
>>24452481
I used to believe that 'psychedelics' just don't make you creative.
Now I'm seeing that they in fact make you UNcreative. They make you so obsessed with the first half-shat out idea you have, your brain bars itself from roaming and just goes with it, dumbly entranced. Same with music, same with intellect (believing your epiphanies), same with visual art.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UbNwhm2EX8
SMiLE!
>>24452511
Did you try to denote my person through just pointing to the original post of the thread in which I made many posts?
If so, then it's the most far-fetched metonymy I've ever seen. And pretty awesome to be honest.
>>24446704
If it's your first time dropping cid I would highly recommend you stay away from the shower and bathroom mirror.
In the last 7 days I have consumed:
10 strip of LSD (1280ug total)
15 grams ayy lmaos
I feel nice.
>>24452669
Why binge on psychedelics? after the first dose you lose most of the potency for a few days to a week afterwards.
>>24452481
>>24452534
Fair points. I guess "productive" makes more sense, as the result is me sitting with a product as a "souvenir" from the trip. However, the product is pretty much completely useless to anyone else then mysef, which is why I avoided the word.
Playing classical guitar however, is DEFINITELY uncreative, and I acknowledge that, but I'm merely a hedonist doing whatever gives me pleassure, and whether or not it's creative or not doesn't really change any of it.
LSD in itself, for most people, isn't some profound, meaningful experience, it's just spending time being happy rather than a nihilistic cunt.
>polack autist at it again
literally no one would miss you if you killed yourself, not even your family
>>24452708
this, that sounds like a waste. Wait a month.
>>24452751
I'd love to, but I don't want to underestimate the tendency I might have to in spite of myself manipulate other people into believing I'm not a harmful person. So as to ensure no one misses me, I must first find a convincing way to explain to them I'm shit. It is a delicate subject.
>>24452745
>in itself
>>24452745
>it's just
Signs that a person doesn't want to talk about the consequences of something: shifting the subject to tautologies/free will blaming ('it's not harmful in itself, it's about how you use it'), and simplification (selection of just one or two consequences).
>>24452745
>LSD in itself, for most people, isn't some profound, meaningful experience, it's just spending time being happy rather than a nihilistic cunt.
This is what this autist can't seem to comprehend. He quote obviously lacks much real experience of normal people trying these drugs, and so he bases his ideas on what he's garnered from the vocal minority talking metaphysical bullshit online. It's like sitting in on AA meetings for a while then using that to claim that EVERYONE who ever tries a sip of booze will inevitably end up a penniless drunk. For the vast majority of people all a trip is is a curious and hopefully entertaining diversion from their regular state of consciousness that lasts a few hours until sober enough to reflect on the experience. For most, that reflection will be "that was an interesting look at the subjective emotional and sensory effects of a chemical on my brain", not "woaaahhhh duddeeeeee i like understand the UniVerSE!1!11!!1!!1!"
>>24452876
Encore!
>>24452873
>>24452873
So you're claiming that free will and ones intention has absolutely no bearing on drugs that are widely considered to have effects almost entirely dependent on ones mindset and will at the time?
>>24452900
>Signs that a person doesn't want to talk about the consequences of something: shifting the subject to tautologies/free will blaming
Except when concerning psychedelics, ones intent and mindset does play a very meaningful part in their cognitive effects. The fact that you're disputing this shows how little you know about psychedelics as a whole.
>>24452807
Just show them your posts in this thread, then they'll know you're a useless autist
>>24452913
No, I'm saying that the cravenly druggie tactic is to whenever things go well, go 'you go psychedelics! such a wonderful substance! God's gift to man', and whenever things go bad, go 'not psychedelics' fault, the guy just forgot about the set(ting) (let me optimize this fucking redundant cliche for you), he was just being irresponsible, he just didn't take the right lessons, he was dumb to begin with, the substance has nothing to do with this'.
Repulsive.
>>24452937
See >>24452974.
'He, uh, he just should have had a different mindset! His fault!'
>>24452974
>well
*'well'
>>24452974
For fuck's sake, where do you get this shit from? Of course there are risks with taking psychedelics, and these are, without a single shred of a doubt, affected by the set and setting of the person.
This doesn't mean that LSD isn't "to blame", per say, as the bad trip wouldn't have happened without the LSD, but then again, responsible people who don't treat psychedelics like alcohol and MDMA genuinely rarely have bad trips. They're easily avoidable for a non-retarded human being-
But the largest point of all; the risks associated with LSD are in most cases merely a bad fucking trip. LSD isn't dangerous, it can just be a bad experience if you don't know what the fuck you are doing and don't understand what the drug is like at all. A bad experience isn't synonymous with dangerous.
It CAN be a "wonderfil substance" for some people, and it can be a terrifying substance for others, but those others are almost exclusively the retards straight out of high school who don't understand the idea behind being careful and, in one sense; "respecting the power of the drug". Of course the person in some sense is to blame for a bad trip, as they're easily avoidable.
>>24452998
>'He, uh, he just should have had a different mindset! His fault!'
Obviously any negative effects one might have are entirely because of the drugs and their effects, but the fact that you consistently fail to recognize how much those effects can vary based on ones mindset shows how laughably little you know about these chemicals.
You're the only one talking about blame and where the "fault" lies, you're the only one who is for some reason stuck in this black and white view of cause. Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of these drugs knows that the cognitive and emotional impact of the experience is basically entirely variable on mindset, why are you still disputing this? No one's using that to say that with someone who fucks themselves up the drugs aren't to blame.
>>24452708
Weed tolerance is ridiculous now.
Big doses are fun.
>>24453089
Oh, so you want to tug-of-adjective and tug-of-adverb at the moment?
>some
>most
>easily
>rarely
Again see the middle paragraph of >>24451900. Even if it were true that 'some' trips are harmless, which it isn't (the reason this isn't said is 'psychedelics' change your definition of 'harmful' and 'helpful' -- you need to keep this point in mind), there is no way to know if you belong to the lucky 'non-retarded' population. 'Family history of mental illness' is a laughable criterion.
>>24453089
Wow, that was very well put and I think you've finally gotten me to notice the gaping holes in my reasoning. Thank you anon, I'll stop shitting up drug threads with my autism now and go on with my day.but seriously could you imagine?
>>24453240
Just to make something clear, I'm not advocating the usage of psychedelics to anyone else, as it seems like you're implying this. And the reason for this is along the lines of what you're saying, I don't know if they would enjoy it at all. I only take responsibility for myself, and if somebody else is to try psychedelics, then the responsibility for that experimenting is completely on them, and them alone.
>>24453240
>(the reason this isn't said is 'psychedelics' change your definition of 'harmful' and 'helpful'
[citation needed]
Where do you get this stuff? I like to think that you're not just literally making up bullshit but then I can't fathom where you could possibly get your info that your arguments are as stupid as this?
Watch colorful cartoons and go in only wanting to have fun watching cartoons.
>>24453185
Jesus Christ. Just yesterday, I explained in another thread how your pretentious, condescending, insufferable crap about 'right mindset' is just self-manipulation designed to minimize cognitive dissonance with respect to drug 'epiphanies'. Of course if you intoxicate yourself with the mantra that 'nothing can get wrong, it's fine, it's fine, I'm totally accepting of the progress and the consequences of the trip', you're going to eventually find them 'okay'. But this doesn't mean that >>24447553 and >>24449289 doesn't happen.
Idiot. Literal idiot. Useful idiot.
>>24453292
>Just to make something clear, I'm not advocating the usage of psychedelics to anyone else, as it seems like you're implying this
Stop lying.
>the responsibility for that experimenting is completely on them, and them alone
The epitome of washing hands of.
>>24446307
Listen to the led zeppelin live album from south Hampton 1973 you will NOT regret ita
>>24453292
Don't you get it? Enjoyment is irrelevant, the moment you take any psychedelics regardless of whether or not you have a good time they're melting your brain and turning you into a hippy/Buddhist/non-empiricist or whatever this guy hates so much
>>24453377
I remember ages ago we almost had a meaningful discussion (it would have been a lot easier without you spurging out and insulting me for no reason) and I gave you my Skype details in the hope that we could actually have a conversation, as I'm sure you're well aware that this websites format is anathema to meaningful debate and only helps facilitate your massive strawmanning and general idiocty. You outright refused because I was a "druggie" and hence could obviously very put forward anything remotely comprehensible.
It's really hard to take you seriously when you outright refuse the prospect of a conversation format in which you would actually be forced to back up and elaborate on what you say and why you say it.
>>24453314
Another retard.
If I told you that, say, people who say 'I'm sorry if I offended you' are just shifting the situational blame onto another person, through implying that they've done nothing wrong but are willing to apologize as soon as he/she wants them to, thus unfairly implying that it is him/her who has unwarranted demands while posing as the moral one, would you ask for a citation too?
Is your IQ literally as low as mine?
You don't get 'citations' for phenomena like this. When you read for the two-hundredth time a druggie who says that 'they understood that they were too lost in unnecessary details and perfectionism', it doesn't take a genius to notice that their definition of 'necessary' in this no-brainerly subjective claim has shifted. Unless your retardation is of such magnitude that you don't even realize that definitions are not things found in dictionaries.
>>24453377
>Stop lying.
>Nuh uh you're just lying
But I'm not. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? I don't even know what we're arguing about by this point. Psychedelics is something I'm doing on my own, no fucking way am I going to push it on somebody else, I can't guarantee them the same great experiences I'm having.
>>24453404
I guess so.
>>24453527
My pizzas done now so I'm going to have to say goodbye, as always it's been lovely. Bear in mind that skype offer still stands, I would genuinely love to see you put forward and elaborate upon your arguments logically in a relatively intellectually sound environment rather than the strawmen and terrible analogies that you love so much.
Sweetdreams bby
>>24453480
>strawmanning
Ah, that. The old 'I'm too retarded to notice that the person I'm talking with is not as inconsiderate of their readers as to limit the points they bring up exclusively to replies to my explicit remarks, therefore my egocentric brain is going to interpret their mode of replying as strawmanning'.
Since it's too tiring to explain this every single time, I guess I'll just have to live with it.
>>24446307
500ug, alone, in silent darkness
>>24446307
Do it without Polacks.
>>24446307
Chuck this on full screen and pull a bulb of nitrous every ten minutes
http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/enter-a-fluid-cosmos-of-synesthesia?utm_source=mbfb
>>24453608
>I'm going to write a long post mocking someone over their concept of the term strawmanning whilst conveniently ignoring all of the actual points in their post!
You can't make this stuff up
>>24453639
You (plural) make no points.
>>24453647
>I gave you my Skype details in the hope that we could actually have a conversation, as I'm sure you're well aware that this websites format is anathema to meaningful debate and only helps facilitate your massive strawmanning and general idiocty. You outright refused because I was a "druggie" and hence could obviously very put forward anything remotely comprehensible.
>It's really hard to take you seriously when you outright refuse the prospect of a conversation format in which you would actually be forced to back up and elaborate on what you say and why you say it.
The invitation still stands, I'm genuinely curious as to your views, but from how you present them and your refusal to consider a real conversation shows that you only care about arguing for the sake of arguing.
>>24453647
And you do? toppest of keks
>>24453707
Only addressing the people who've read the end (or the final five points visible from the board index) of the thread, in hopes that they don't read its entirety and won't verify your claim, is vile tactic, anon. Another morally bankrupt druggie... I mean, another druggie. Let's not be redundant.
>>24453766
Thanks for ignoring >>24453683
...again
>>24453777
And what makes you think you're any different from the tens of thousands of other druggies on erowid and bluelight and whatever exactly?
Oh, right, you are 'responsible' and 'rational' and 'understand the subject'.
>>24453807
In fact, that's a funny one. Not everyone believes that they're intelligent; the definition of intelligence is still unambiguous enough. But literally everyone believes they are 'responsible'; the true object of the Dunning-Kruger...
>>24453807
I'd like to imagine that I am, and most would probably agree that I was, but you may well prove me wrong.
All I'm asking is that you actually partake in a meaningful conversation in which both parties must elaborate upon and back up their points as one tends to have to do in a spoken debate, rather than your patented "fire and forget" method of writing a meaningless post full of insults and assumptions, calling it an argument and further insulting anyone who asks you to explain yourself.
But oh well, I suppose you having any intellectual credibility is just the fever dream of a degenerate druggie
>>24453878
Don't delude yourself (or fuck, do). All you'd be going to spout would be the same [citation needed], 'no true druggie', #notalldruggies, and so on.
>>24453925
In other words, nothing that holds a candle to my claims of >>24447553 and >>24447605 and >>24450310 or >>24451620 or >>24451900 or >>24452974 or >>24453377, and those are BASIC AS FUCK.
>>24453925
And how exactly is anything you've said any less based on your own interpretation of the information you've "gathered"?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that I probably have much more irl experience of this subject (and more experience in general) than you, yet in the end both of our arguments are based on our own opinions on the matter. All you're going to do is post the same arguments you make every thread to have them rebutted only for you to throw insults at those arguing you.
>>24453974
What, through this entire thread, do you feel like is your concluding thought? LSD is bad? Users of it are retards? Happiness is meaningless? I'm genuinely curious.
>>24453974
Do you genuinely think that the posts you've linked are sound arguments? Every one of them shows a pretty basic misunderstanding of psychedelics and their effects.
Our of curiosity, where have you gathered all the information you base your arguments off? and if it's off talking to people on websites like this, don't you think that it could potentially not be at all indicative of the demographic as a whole?
>Every single intake of 'psychedelics' by every single person causes aggravation of those, for denying which you are an idiot, no matter your belated acknowledgement I am right.
I think this sums up anti-druggie autism man pretty well. He doesn't care about facts, or evidence, or the testimonies of many people who have actually experienced the thing he's talking about, he's conclusively figured it out through talking to random anons on 4chan and no matter what you say or think, he IS right.
Godspeed you glorious bastard
>>24454017
Let's call this a good question.
The endgame thought, but it is rather removed from strictly this thread, is that people have no interest in developing, explaining, and employing 'fine-fitting' models of things, such as those in computer science or physics (to yet again rely on this pitiful handful of subjects I am aware of...), e.g. those that would allow you to construct a robot imitating a human (my old criterion for what constitutes meaningful knowledge). Instead, people entertain themselves with making ad hoc, unfalsifiable claims about broad concepts sensed as tangential to those, such as 'understanding is about...' or 'every theory...' or 'right and wrong...' or 'what matters is...', which lead nowhere and inclination for which 'psychedelics' inherently owing to the way the brain works (increasing the impression of relevance), skyrocket.
This is my embarrassing intellectual state-of-the-art.
>very one of them shows a pretty basic misunderstanding of psychedelics
'EVERY DRUG IS DIFFERENT' and 'EVERY DRUGGIE IS DIFFERENT' is not understanding, it is just anti-intellectual go-to cry when one's nothing else to say.
>>24454180
Last quote from >>24454070.
>>24454180
You're very adept at typing so much yet saying fuck all
>>24454169
>facts
What facts?
Oh, wait, you're a druggie. Then surely the facts in question of which I'm not aware is that 'what one hasn't tried, one mustn't speak of' and 'every single case is different'.
>>24454250
>Oh, wait, you're a druggie.
[citation needed]
I swear you're worse than stormfags calling everyone who disagrees with them a kike
>>24454206
You can hardly reply to nothing with something. I do my best.
>>24454270
Out of curiosity, what's your job?
watch Pink Floyd's Live at Pompeii or the original Heavy Metal
>>24454267
Go on, hit me with those 'facts' then. Or wait, give me three more tries. Is it 'You must educate yourself on the subject before you speak.'? Is it 'You cannot speak for other people's experiences.'? Or maybe 'You must accept that you don't know everything.'?
>>24454290
Out of spite, not curiosity. Don't lie.
>>24454339
>Out of spite, not curiosity. Don't lie.
Wait, what? How exactly can one ask a question "out of spite"? I'm curious as to what job someone with your outlook would seek out and enjoy?
You're the only person who's been consistently spiteful this entire thread, and I really don't know why. You seem like a very angry person generally.
>>24454250
>>24454339
(For the druggies among us... I mean... around me, let me point out the obvious that those faux 'facts' exemplify >>24454180, whereby explaining mechanisms such as I did in >>24453974 is met with vague hostility that makes no point, but merely accuses of lack of broad 'understanding' or 'competency'.)
>>24454406
>I'm curious as to what job someone with your outlook
There are enough clues in this thread and others as for what interests I would have had had I been intelligent. Sage.
>>24454436
You realize that people don't write out meticulous counter arguments against you because your own are so laughably constructed that it's clear you never had anything close to an intention for an actual rational conversation? No one takes you seriously because you're impossible to actually talk to, because you just begin spouting random strawmen (inb4 some addendum explaining how I'm an idiot and you're right) and insults.
Maybe if you presented yourself reasonably and didn't make yourself look like a raging autist then you might get the thoughtful rebuttals you seem to crave.
>>24454436
Further might be added that druggies calling such accusations 'facts' engage in stretching the definition of 'fact' from 'a piece of knowledge about the material world' to platitudes such as 'you should learn some humility', which definitional abuse too is facilitated by 'psychedelics'.
>>24454454
There are many clues towards interests, yes, but I was hoping for an actual answer.
You've mentioned your lack of intelligence readily a few times now, but you've never seemed to take it into account and consider that the reason that everyone seems to find your arguments dumb is, rather than psychedelics eroding peoples ability to think logically, that they're just shitty baseless arguments?
>>24454502
Do you have a generator of such posts, anon? I'd write a generator of random claims of irrationality, not even because of the ROBOT9000.
>>24454565
I used to take it into account. I had understood that my competency is caused by my devotion of exceptional amounts of time to the subject(s) in spite of my IQ and I haven't thought about it since. No point.
>>24454565
Also, I've been wanting for a dozen of posts for you to perhaps have the idea to provide an example of 'irrationality' of mine, but it seems that you need a personal prompt. Would you?
>>24454676
Hey, I know you write me off as a clueless druggie engulfed in my own retardation, but you're a right autistic cunt, and I think you should realize this.
>>24454764
Totally a joke making an implication that yes, it could be an evasion of the question, but isn't. Totally not evasion of the question. Yes.
>>24454792
Oh, no, I'm not the one you've been talking to. That guy simply hasn't replied yet, or given up, I wouldn't know.
>>24454854
Well, then, let me say again that for all my, shared by /r9k/ I think, disdain towards attempts to 'reclaim' terms such as, 'slut', 'dyke', 'nigger', isn't it?, I can't help feeling being called 'autistic' is slowly becoming something to be proud of.
>>24454936
And I really don't feel it's sweet grapes.
>>24454959
Shit, be proud of it, be ashamed of it, doesn't affect me much, I'm just hoping you're aware of it.
>>24454983
I am not autistic. I am at around, say, 20th centile of the allism-autism scale, as opposed to 25th-30th in intelligence.
>>24455025
>>24454983
If you're wondering, the simplest test for autism is reaction to tone of voice and facial expression (though not only, in fact, today a premise was that I began to relate to a pounding rhythm of some shitty 'music' a neighbour played before I became aware and subdued it.)
