Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Tequila and Porn

By akp in Culture
Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:00:35 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

Some people celebrate Valentine's Day by buying flowers for their significant others. Some buy chocolate or candy, or maybe just cards. Many couples go out for romantic dinners together. Others still buy jewelry for their sweeties. Many single people dread the day, since it reminds them of the fact that they are single. Other unattached people view it as a chance to go out and meet others who are seeking to find some companionship. And some people just use the day as an excuse to spend some special time with their loved ones.

I celebrate Valentine's Day by throwing a Tequila and Porn party.


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Tequila and Porn: Some Background

The idea of a Tequila and Porn party didn't originate with me. When I was in college a male friend of mine lived at the only co-ed dorm at the neighboring women's college. For his birthday, some of the gang decided to throw a wild debauched party. His dormmates (mostly women) came up with the theme of tequila and porn, with the party consisting of heavy drinking and watching hardcore porn. The first Tequila and Porn party thus happened at a liberal, feminist women's college, with about six guys and twenty or so women in attendance. Videos were watched, magazines were given away as party favors, a striptease was performed, much alcohol was consumed, and, eventually, campus security was called by one of the non-attendees in the dorm. In short, it was a rousing success.

A year and a half later I'm out of college and living in the Boston area. The topic of the first Tequila and Porn comes up at some point, and it occurs to me that some of the same qualities that made that party so successful the first time are also present with my group of friends in Boston. When it comes right down to it, a group of young, well-educated, liberal, generally low-key professionals getting together and getting drunk and watching porn has about the same warm and fuzzy appeal as having a bunch of feminist women's college students doing the same thing. Besides, a lot of my friends (mostly the women) hadn't ever actually seen any hardcore porn before. It seemed to me to be a moral imperative to do something about that.

Why Valentine's Day?

Personally, I never liked Valentine's Day. In my mind, it's a holiday that exists only for the greeting card, cheap decorative chocolate, and restaurant industries. If you're single, it's just a reminder that you're alone. If you're involved with someone, then it's a chore, as you have to go out of your way in order to make that day meet some romantic ideal. Besides, in my experience, romance is a spontaneous thing, and doesn't take all that well to external pressures. So Valentine's Day just doesn't work for me.

Fortunately for me, my girlfriend likes Valentine's Day even less than I do. So, we figured, if it would be a good idea to have a Tequila and Porn party, then what better time to have it then on Valentine's Day? It's a perfect fit--drinking and watching pornography is about as far away from the traditional Hallmark view of Valentines Day that you can get. We'll not be having any of that neo-Victorian view of romance as cards and flowers and candy. We're showing the other side of love--the raunchy, sweaty, sticky side. The side that polite society tries to pretend doesn't exist. And this is a party that anybody, whether in a relationship or not, can come to. If you're in a couple, then you don't have to worry about being romantic, since it's pretty much impossible to be romantic while downing tequila shots and watching some guy's hairy ass bouncing up and down. And if you're single then there's a good chance that, after watching hours and hours of ugly men and silicone women and detailed close-ups of genitalia, you'll decide that you're not really missing out on all that much by not being in a sexual relationship. So it's a win all around.

The Party

Tequila and Porn (hereafter referred to as 'T&P') is just what it sounds like: at the party the guests drink of lot of tequila (and other beverages, many of them alcoholic) and watch a lot of hardcore porn. For the past six years we've been having a T&P party at or around Valentine's Day. We usually start the party around 7:00 in the evening, starting the first movie at around 8:00 (to give the early arrivers time to get fortified by a few drinks before they have to watch porn). From then on, it's hardcore porn and drinking for the rest of the night, which usually goes pretty late (like 4:00 or 5:00). In between, there is a lot of video flesh, bad music, and squishy sounds, lots of mocking, snide comments, and laughter at the tv screen, and many calls for more alcohol to dull the more painful parts of the spectacle.

Many of the guests usually take this opportunity to dress in outfits that they usually don't get to wear in public. Bodices, merry widows, thongs, liquid latex--as long as it's at least arguably street legal, it's ok to wear (and even encouraged). This is a good excuse to show off any of the sexy (or trashy) clothes that usually only one other person ever gets to see you wear. Or, alternatively, it's a good excuse to go out and buy such clothes. ("No, really--I just bought this collar to wear to the next T&P.")

Tequila

As you can probably guess, tequila isn't the only drink served at T&P. But it is the alcoholic centerpiece. It fits in well with the general theme--for good reasons or bad, tequila has a bad reputation. It's well known as a drink for doing shots, and, generally speaking, if you're shooting your drink then you're just drinking in order to get drunk. It also conjures up pictures of guys in saloons in the American West, guys who have a few too many tequila shots and then get themselves killed in barroom brawls. In short, it's the perfect match to hardcore porn. (The motto we often use for T&P is "Cheap tequila and cheaper porn.")

In addition to the tequila, though, you'll definitely want to have a fully stocked bar for this party. You want to encourage people to drink. Several of our guests, in fact, swear that large amounts of alcohol are required in order to be able to stand to watch the porn. You're probably better off keeping your guests happy if you have their favorite drinks available, too. It works best, though, if you try to get everyone to have a shot or two of tequila in addition to whatever else they want to drink. It adds a certain feeling of solidarity.

We encourage heavy (though not excessive--we don't want anyone to get sick) consumption of alcohol at our T&P parties. The rationale is rather simple: if you go to a party and drink too much, you're likely to make an ass of yourself. However, if you go to a party and everybody is supposed to get drunk, then there's no reason to be embarrassed about passing out in the middle of the floor; that's exactly what you're expected to do. Besides, if you're sitting around with your friends watching porn while half-naked, it's not like having a bit too much to drink should embarrass you any.

I should also mention that we do have several friends who just don't drink, whether because they just don't like alcohol or for other reasons. The agreement with them is pretty much that as long as they don't mind being surrounded by a bunch of drunk people, and as long as they don't mind watching porn while sober, then they're free to come and not drink anything. For our friends who do drink, however, there's pretty much a one or two drink minimum unless they're driving or are taking medication or have some other good reason like that. (Actually, as long as people are into it and not disapproving of either the drinking or the other general debauchery, we're pretty much ok with it.)

Porn

First of all, if you've never rented (or bought) porn before, then you might be a bit surprised at how self-conscious you feel. There is still a taboo about viewing pornography, in the U.S. anyway. Sure, a lot of people on the Internet will admit that their hard drives are fully of pr0n. But one of the big advantages of Internet porn is that you don't actually have to deal with any other actual people in order to get it. You can just get on your computer, go to various websites (or Usenet groups, or what have you), and download anything that you want behind the relative anonymity of an IP address.

Renting porn in a video store is a different matter. You have to walk in, go to the back room, and stand around there with a few lonely looking guys who furtively pick up the tape for Ass Banging Sluts 17 before shuffling out to the check out counter, hoping that nobody notices. You have to deal with the disapproving glances that other store customers (mostly women, but a few guys too) give you when they see what kinds of movies you're interested in.

So, suggestions here: first of all, if you have the money, then you don't have to do rentals. This past year we bought several videos from blowfish.com that we figured would be difficult to find at the local video store. The purchase was no problem through their website, the videos were delivered in a simple brown cardboard box, and I have not gotten placed on any embarrassing mailing lists as a result. Added bonuses are a much better selection of higher-quality videos (you don't have to settle for Nothing Like Nurse Nookie 4 if you mail order) and the fact that, if you don't get around to watching some of the videos, then you can keep them around for next year. Disadvantages are much higher costs and the fact that you have to figure out what to do with the videos after the party. (Fortunately, we haven't been asked yet by anyone who hasn't been to our parties why exactly we now have a small porn collection.)

Second, find out if there is a good, sex-positive adult store near you. Here in the Boston area, we've found that Grand Opening in Brookline is a wonderful store for adult videos as well as for any other adult items that you might want. It's woman-owned and women-staffed, and generally has a very friendly and supportive atmosphere. After my first visit (since, let's face it, a first visit to a sex shop is bound to be uncomfortable in some way or another) I've never been made to feel awkward in the store. Plus since the staff are friendly, knowledgeable, and female, they're good people to ask for suggestions for movies that would be appropriate to a mixed-gender crowd. As an added bonus, you also get to browse their selection of toys and books while you're there. Apparently Grand Opening has also opened up a store in L.A. Though I've never been to either, Toys in Babeland in New York and Seattle has a similar reputation, as does Good Vibrations in San Francisco. I'm sure that other cities have similar stores; perhaps some other members of the K5 community will be nice enough to suggest some.

Finally, if you do end up having to go to the local West Coast Video in order to get some (or all) of your porn, then do your best to go in a group of three or four people, preferably with at least two women in your group. It's amazing how much less awkward you feel looking through the adult video section when you have two attractive young women with you with whom to discuss the selection. Plus the fact that nothing clears out the adult section of the worst of the creepy guys as fast as having actual women walk into the area. Of course, I should also say that my female friends have expressed that they would feel uncomfortable going into a normal video store to rent porn by themselves. So I guess the story is, if you have to go to a normal video store to rent porn, then go in a bi-gendered group if possible.

I will mention that there are plenty other ways to get video porn--I believe that you can order them streaming over the Internet now, and I think that some of the online DVD rental places have a selection of adult movies. For that matter, most cable companies have pay-per-view adult channels, so you could possibly just try going with that. I've only rented videos locally and ordered some online, myself, though, so I'm afraid that you're on your own for those. One thing that I will say, though: however it is that you get your movies, make sure that you get many more than you'll have time to watch. Chances are, many of the movies will be so bad that you won't want to watch even half of them, and even for the better ones I've found that we do a lot of fast-forwarding. So either make sure that you get more than enough, or that you have a backup plan if it turns out that you've run out of movies at 11:00.

As for the porn choices themselves, you should definitely take your audience into consideration. For instance, I've tried to avoid any movies which have non-consensual themes to them, since I've been told by a number of my female guests that they don't approve of such movies. This means that we've never shown classics like Behind the Green Door, since it involves a woman being abducted for sex, or Deep Throat, due to the allegations by the star that she was forced into making the movie. It also means that we make sure to avoid anything like the Rocco: Animal Trainer series, which apparently specializes in rough sex. (Of course, once you've thrown one or two of these parties and have an idea of your guests' tastes, then you can feel free to experiment more, but for a first party it's probably a good idea to err to the more vanilla side.)

As for things that we've liked, the classics are a good place to start. We showed Debbie Does Dallas at the first T&P that we threw, and it's still probably our favorite. We also tend to go more towards the silly end of porn, so in the past we've gotten things like Genital Hospital, the Maddam's Family, and Double Feature. Movies with plot are good, although you have to be careful about when you play them; you don't want to do two of them in a row, and by 2:00 am, everybody is probably too out of it to pay attention to plot anyway. And, of course, it's also good to get some really lowbrow, looks like it was made with a camcorder in somebody's basement, plot--what plot? movies, too. I've found that many websites (including the aforementioned blowfish.com) have some really good reviews and suggestions, though I will warn you that the selection available in your local video store is probably of much lower quality than the movies reviewed on the net.

There are also some less successful experiments that we've tried. While a few of our guests thought that the first hentai (Anime porn) that we showed, which involved a large plant with tentacles kidnapping high school girls, was the hottest thing that we've shown, most of us just thought that it was really weird. Since we were a bit scared off by that one, the other hentai that we've gotten has been disappointing in the opposite extreme, that is, having basically no sex in it at all. I'm sure that there is very good hentai out there that would be perfect for T&P, but we haven't found it yet.

Similarly, S&M videos have been generally disappointing; we've shown four, of which two were so boring that we turned them off about 15 minutes in (after fast forwarding through the rest of the tape to make sure that, indeed, nothing interesting every happened in the entire video), one was watchable but slow, and one was the most erotic movie we showed that year (mostly due to the fact that the bottom was incredibly cute and really got into it). A lot of the problem with S&M videos is that very few bondage films actually have any actual sex in them, and there's only so much spanking you can watch before you start reaching for the remote control.

The worst failures that we've had were probably The Mighty Hermaphrodite and Midget Madness. Unfortunately, I have to take the blame for both of those. Bad, bad, bad.

Final comments/additional suggestions

As you've probably guessed by now, the reason that I'm posting this article to K5 is that I think it would be cool if other people started throwing Tequila and Porn parties too. I happen to think that they're very appropriate for Valentine's Day, but, really, you could have one for just about any occasion. All you need is a house, some booze, a TV and VCR, and a group of friends who are willing to drop some of their less useful inhibitions for a night.

We've had some additional activities at T&P such as erotica readings (including a section from the Starr report), games of XXXenophile, and giving away door prizes (condoms, lube, etc.). This year we're planning on playing Porn Bingo, with spaces for many of the annoying porn conventions that we've noticed over the years ("Badly Faked Orgasm", "Flaccid Blowjob", "Fingernails That Long Shouldn't Go There"). In general, though, we've kept the main part of the party to drinking, watching porn, and whatever general socializing we can do while inebriated.

One thing to be careful of is the amount of sexuality you actually want to have present during a T&P party. It's one thing to go to a party wearing a merry widow and drinking and watching porn with your friends. It's another thing to end up at an orgy. If you're going to have a sex party then advertise it as a sex party, not as a drinking and porn party. And if some of your guests do decide that they want to act on their urges, then see if you can at least find a room for them to use that's relatively private.

A word should also be said about discretion. While an attendee might not have any problems with drinking and watching porn with a bunch of other people who have also chosen to do so, it doesn't necessarily mean that they want to have everyone know that that's how they chose to spend an evening. So you might not want to speak all that openly about a guest's attendance at the party with other people who might not already know about it. In other words, don't walk into a co-worker's office while her boss is in the room and say, "Hey, remember when we were all over at your house watching midget porn?" It's not likely to be appreciated.

Since this is by nature a drinking party, you will probably want to have space available for people to sleep.

It's also a good idea for one of the hosts to stay sober enough to make sure that nobody drinks a dangerous amount, and also to make sure that all of the people who drink and aren't going to be staying the night have arranged transportation that doesn't involve them driving.

We usually try to switch from tequila to water around one or two in the morning, or two hours or so before it looks like the party will break up, whichever comes first. This helps to ward off hangovers. Personally, I've found that drinking lots of water and sobering up a fair amount before going to sleep are the two most important factors in avoiding feeling terrible the following morning.

If you want to be really nice, offer to make breakfast for anybody who spends the night (and therefore that you don't have to make travel arrangements for).

Despite the principled avoidance of some of our more Catherine MacKinnon minded friends, our Tequila and Porn party is still the most well-attended event that we do all year.

Have fun.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o blowfish.c om
o Grand Opening
o Toys in Babeland
o Good Vibrations
o XXXenophil e
o Also by akp


Display: Sort:
Tequila and Porn | 332 comments (309 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden)
good idea (3.20 / 10) (#2)
by tps12 on Tue Jan 28, 2003 at 10:40:34 PM EST

Though I generally disapprove of the viewing of pornography, this sounds like a good use of it.

Typical cheap geek ass? (2.57 / 49) (#4)
by jjayson on Tue Jan 28, 2003 at 10:49:31 PM EST

Personally, I never liked Valentine's Day. In my mind, it's a holiday that exists only for the greeting card, cheap decorative chocolate, and restaurant industries. If you're single, it's just a reminder that you're alone. If you're involved with someone, then it's a chore, as you have to go out of your way in order to make that day meet some romantic ideal.
What a horrible attitude. You don't like Valentine's Day because you might be forced to show some affection or that if might remind you of something wonderful? Valentine's Day is day to celebrate love. There is such a thing as romanticism, and if we were all like you, it would probably be dead. Has the radiation from excessive staring at the porn on your monitor hardened your heart so much that you cannot feel it?  The longer I have been going out with somebody, the more I have put into Valentine's Day. Yes, keep it up for the rest of the year, but don't try to deny it on the day you are to remember it. All people want to do on this site is fuck each other. People rarely express a desire to fall in love and have their heart broken. It is such an alive feeling though, and one that will make you a better person. Anybody can go have a one night stand of go rent a porn movie, but what does it add to you? What does it make your ability to love? It doesn't; it detracts and makes you cold.

We're showing the other side of love--the raunchy, sweaty, sticky side.
Porn isn't love. Where did you get this idea? It is lust without love, without respect, without a relationship, without consequences, without emotion, without living.

And if you're single then there's a good chance that, after watching hours and hours of ugly men and silicone women and detailed close-ups of genitalia, you'll decide that you're not really missing out on all that much by not being in a sexual relationship.
Yes, and study after study shows that you are more likely to either rape somebody or be calloused to rape. Getting somebody drunk, lowering their inhibitions, then making them callous to rape sounds like a great way to court disaster.

My suggestion might be more radical, but you will come out of it a better person. You will feel and commune deeply with other humans. You will feel so good you will almost cry at times. Go get some good ecstacy. Find some good music. Get some fruit, massage toys, scented candles, incense, and lighting effects (a computer with projector can do well). Everybody gather together, turn down the lights, start the lighting and music, and get rolling. You will feel empathy towards others, not a callousness that pornography brings.  The music will be good, the hugs good, the fruit will taste amazing. You can share it from lip to lip with your loved one. You will laugh with each other, be with each other instead of detached, and geniunely feel like you have been at something special.

Love and empathy, what a radical idea.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

Is this guy serious?! (4.16 / 6) (#7)
by JChen on Tue Jan 28, 2003 at 11:01:18 PM EST

I can't figure it out! Is he a:

a) Really bad troll

b) Really fucking oblivious

c) Some strange, forbidding combination of a) and b)

Let us do as we say.
[ Parent ]

No. I am not a troll. (4.14 / 7) (#9)
by jjayson on Tue Jan 28, 2003 at 11:05:15 PM EST

Why would you think that? Because I don't believe in pornography? Because I think that believe in human relationship?
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Youdon't what? (5.00 / 6) (#38)
by BadDoggie on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 03:13:54 AM EST

You don't believe in porn? I got some bad new for you: it exists. It's been proven. I could show you some. It's not a matter of "belief" or not.

Now, you don't have to look at it yourself, but it's there. It's one of the few businesses where women earn 10x what men do and more.

woof.

"The line between genius and stupidity is very fine indeed, but you're so far away from the line that it doesn't matter." -- Parent ]

Most excellent (5.00 / 3) (#112)
by Scrymarch on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:44:04 PM EST

"I don't believe in England"
"What, it's just a conspiracy of cartographers?"

-- Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

[ Parent ]

hahaha... (none / 0) (#122)
by terpy on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 03:47:10 PM EST

that actually made me laugh out loud!

---
"I may be wrong, but I have arrived at my wrongness through expensive and respectable means."--ghjm
[ Parent ]

Because you have no tact? (5.00 / 10) (#59)
by it certainly is on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 08:34:03 AM EST

I have been single on the previous 24 Valentine's Days of my life. Likewise, five of my friends have been single on every Valentine's Day of their lives. It's a cumulative 150 years of arrogant finger-pointing, reminding us how bad we are at showing off our plumage and ensnaring a mate. Our other contributions to the world for which we have status and respect are completely lost on this day. Valentine's Day serves only to guilt-trip us by suggesting that single people are not eligible for membership of the human race. Single people are the new lepers of society.

Tell you what, why don't we have a "jjayson is married and we're not" party? You can come round and bone your wife in front of us, constantly reminding us how good it is to have someone else the world that actually gives a damn about you. Next up, perhaps we'll have Stephen Hawking fucking his busty nurse-wife, telling us that despite having motor neurone disease, he managed to get not just one but TWO women to marry him! He'll bang on about how he may be crippled but at least he's not SINGLE! "A ha ha ha ha!" is what his voice-box will say. There will then be a gun handed round should any of us now feel ready for suicide.

The reason February is a day shorter than the other months is because it goes straight from the 13th to the 15th in my calendar.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Relationships are not hard to find... (3.00 / 2) (#105)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:19:12 PM EST

they are hard to keep.

Why is that the same things keeps being whined, "I don't have a girlfriend and Valentine's makes me feel bad." Well, do you get upset at a couple holding hands in line in front of you at the movies? Is your heart so cold that you cannot enjoy the love that others share? Nobody is telling you that you are a bad person because you are single, that is what you project. Card and ads out there celebrate love, and I have yet to see anything that relegates a single person to a second class person.

I can't say why you are not in a relationship or have never been in one that has lasted to Valentine's day. That is something you have to find out on your own. I am not going to presume to know you.

If it makes you feel any better, I am not in a deep relationship right now either, but I will be out Valentine's day at a bar having a few drinks with other who are not either. It doesn't hurt me. I like to see people holding hands in the restraunt, to see the nuzzle in line at the movies. It gives me this warm fuzzy feeling to know that people are in love.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]

When is Singles Appreciation Day? (5.00 / 2) (#117)
by it certainly is on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 03:01:17 PM EST

Imagine I'm a terminal depressive for a moment. What's the best way to cure me? Should you come into my house and play REM's Shiny Happy People at full volume all day and night? How about laughing in my face about what a loser I am for being depressed, and how you're so great because you're happy? That'll make me snap out of it instantly!

I don't have a problem with the fact other people are in relationships. That's just a fact of life, like the fact people go to work, watch TV, go to the toilet, sleep, die, etc. My problem is that some couples wrongly believe THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD WANTS TO KNOW about their relationship and proceed to TELL EVERYONE in the most exhibitionist, most selfish, most aggressive way possible. Then they expect people to LIKE this?

Why don't we have a Solitude Day? You could send all your single friends some $3 card with a pretty picture on the front and some asinine rhyme about how great it is to be single on the inside. Single people should given chocolates and flowers and taken out to dinner, told they are special and they are what makes the world so great.

Why don't you get a fuzzy warm feeling by seeing someone walking alone or looking dejected at the corner of bar?

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

If Valentine's Day is throwing it in people's face (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by Dephex Twin on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 03:33:07 PM EST

then we probably need to get rid of all the holidays.

What's Christmas but flaunting how much money you can spend on people and how many people you have to give gifts to?

Why should people flaunt their enjoyment of beer in front of alcoholics on St. Patrick's Day?

Why should a person with an eating disorder suffer through Thanksgiving?

Why can't we think of the blind during the fireworks show on the 4th of July?

And don't get me started on the impact April Fool's Day has on the gullible!

I mean, honestly... any day that you set aside to celebrate anything or enjoy anything is going to involve celebrating something that other people don't have.

If you want to have a Tequila and Porn Day because you think V-Day is a money-making scheme or some silly forced-loving day, that's fine.  But if you are dripping with envy and contempt for people who happen to enjoy V-Day publicly, then boo-frickin-hoo, I say.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

You're right. (3.00 / 2) (#124)
by it certainly is on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 04:00:37 PM EST

What's Christmas but flaunting how much money you can spend on people and how many people you have to give gifts to?

It's supposed to be a celebration of X's birth, but as you say it has been pounced upon by greedy shopkeepers. Why do you think Buy Nothing Day exists? It also promotes the unrealistic image of familial bliss. Why do you think the majority of people commit suicide in January, right after they've had to endure Christmas either alone or rejected? Guns don't kill people, Christmas kills people.

Why should people flaunt their enjoyment of beer in front of alcoholics on St. Patrick's Day?

Where I come from, the only difference between Paddy's day and any other day is that there's Irish music playing. Surely you should be addressing the concerns of anti-Irish people, i.e. proddy cunts?

Why should a person with an eating disorder suffer through Thanksgiving?

And what about the turkey's feelings, eh?

Why can't we think of the blind during the fireworks show on the 4th of July?

There are no fireworks on the 4th of July. Oh, you mean the American 4th of July, where the Yanks try and rub England's nose in the shit? Not very friendly, is it? Do you think the Vietnamese have fireworks every 27th January? They don't, because they're not a bunch of jeering loudmouths.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Your point is? (none / 0) (#128)
by Dephex Twin on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:02:16 PM EST

I can't tell if you were trying to agree with me, indicate your disagreement through irony, or just throw in some gratuitous anti-Americanism. My point was that for anything good, there are people that don't have it, and enjoying any good is flaunting that at people who lack. It was supposed to be silly conclude that enjoying nothing is the way to go. I don't see what your comment added or rebutted from that.
There are no fireworks on the 4th of July. Oh, you mean the American 4th of July, where the Yanks try and rub England's nose in the shit? Not very friendly, is it?
It's called Independence Day, when we declared the existence of our country to be seperate from England. Yeah, the USA is so obnoxious for celebrating an Independence Day but the British aren't for trying to rule all these different countries that had to declare independence.

If you want to be bitter about the American Revolution, then again I say, boo-frickin-hoo.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
So instead of porn, (none / 0) (#8)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Tue Jan 28, 2003 at 11:04:38 PM EST

you would have a drug-addled orgy! How romantic!

Actually sounds like a good idea to me though.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

orgy? where do you get that from? (2.00 / 1) (#12)
by jjayson on Tue Jan 28, 2003 at 11:12:04 PM EST

who said anything about having sex? Of all the ecstacy in-house small gatherings I have been to, there has never been sex. Just communion. They are actually somewhat antithetical to the concept, since you tend to veiw people as special and have a deep connection to them. Also, many guys cannot get an errection on ecstacy. If you want a "drug-addled orgy" try alcohol or meth.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
meth (none / 0) (#46)
by drgonzo on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 04:36:06 AM EST

hmm
meth usually makes my dick small and unable to errect itself ...

but still go with meth/coke _AND_ a lot of alcohol :)

peace

[ Parent ]

The Southern California LA Valley (2.00 / 1) (#103)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:08:34 PM EST

It is no coincidence that the porn capital of the world is also one of the leading places to find meth. How do you think porn stars last for hours, and why are female orgasms to rare.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Legalities (none / 0) (#14)
by Greyjack on Tue Jan 28, 2003 at 11:47:58 PM EST

Unfortunately, while tequila and porn are both legal, Ecstasy isn't.

--
Here is my philosophy: Everything changes (the word "everything" has just changed as the word "change" has: it now means "no change") --Ron Padgett


[ Parent ]
true... (none / 0) (#15)
by jjayson on Tue Jan 28, 2003 at 11:53:07 PM EST

I really don't have a problem with the drinking. As a generaly rule, I don't support pornography. Somehow I doubt that legality is really an issue with most people on K5, but I would understand if it was. However, why porn?
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Because.... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Greyjack on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 01:20:08 AM EST

...because porn is essentially at the opposite end of the "love" spectrum from the typical Valentine's Day stuff.  It's a joke, basically -- a theme party that flips the Hallmarkized bastardization of the Saint's Feast Day upside down.  Or, more sideways, rather.  Something like that.

--
Here is my philosophy: Everything changes (the word "everything" has just changed as the word "change" has: it now means "no change") --Ron Padgett


[ Parent ]
The opposite of love? (none / 0) (#106)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:20:51 PM EST

The opposite of love it hate. Why would you want to watch gonzo hate flick?
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Clarification (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by Greyjack on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:57:12 PM EST

I was trying to state that porn is "at the opposite end of the 'love' spectrum" from the stereotypical Valentine's Day overly-sugary romantic stuff. We're staying firmly on the Love end of the Love<-->Hate axis here, but we're taking a perpendicular stroll from the Land of Sonnets and Engagement Rings, and heading on over to Fucktown.

You see, the idea of the T&P party is fun for those of us who feel at home with *both* the lovey and the grunty.

Now, for you chaste ones who aren't comfortable with the grunty, well, I suppose you could to a Tequila and Hate party of some sort.

--
Here is my philosophy: Everything changes (the word "everything" has just changed as the word "change" has: it now means "no change") --Ron Padgett


[ Parent ]
"Fucktown" (3.00 / 2) (#132)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:44:23 PM EST

Pornography is debasement and dehumanizing. How is that anywhere close to love? Sex is a beautiful thing, however using somebody as a machine to get you off isn't.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
porn - sex - love (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by Dephex Twin on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 06:02:40 PM EST

Pornography is debasement and dehumanizing. How is that anywhere close to love?
He was saying that pornography is related to sex, and love is related to sex. Thus, the way that pornography is anywhere close to love is that they both have sex in common.
Sex is a beautiful thing, however using somebody as a machine to get you off isn't.
Sex is a fun and enjoyable thing. You aren't using a porn actress as a machine to get you off anymore than you are using the employees at a restaurant as machines to fill your belly with food.

Besides, how is watching porn in a social setting for entertainment trying to get yourself off? Furthermore, what if you were watching a porn with your loved one and sharing the experience?


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
slight correction (5.00 / 1) (#137)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 06:27:01 PM EST

He was saying that pornography is related to sex, and love is related to sex. Thus, the way that pornography is anywhere close to love is that they both have sex in common.
Ok. That makes sense. However, he was talking about the axis of love not the axis of sex.

Sex is a fun and enjoyable thing. You aren't using a porn actress as a machine to get you off anymore than you are using the employees at a restaurant as machines to fill your belly with food.
I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying, is that porn teaches these and other attitudes, not that you enact them when you watch.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Porn teaching (none / 0) (#164)
by Dephex Twin on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 12:26:48 AM EST

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying, is that porn teaches these and other attitudes, not that you enact them when you watch.</I></BLOCKQUOTE>I see nothing wrong with showing you that there's more than just missionary position, or man-woman sex.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
Excuse the wrong formatting [n/t] (none / 0) (#168)
by Dephex Twin on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 12:41:57 AM EST




Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
There isn't... (none / 0) (#234)
by jjayson on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 03:03:04 PM EST

(1) Porn doesn't teach sexual performance well. It is very limited in what it depicts, with few positions, and most of them not allowing for face-to-face contact. Go read the Kama Sutra if you want't to learn more. There is only so much anal sex somebody can see.

(2) There are other behaviors and attitudes that are protrayed. Sure, you can get target practice by shooting at the neighborhood cats, but there is an overwelming downside that can be avoided.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]

porn porn porn porn (none / 0) (#257)
by Dephex Twin on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 05:46:20 PM EST

I never said that porn should be the teacher of sex (and never tried to imply that). I'm not saying a 10 year old should learn what sex is by watching porn. But an adult couple might watch porn and see some interesting position and think, "hmm let's try that!"
Porn doesn't teach sexual performance well. It is very limited in what it depicts, with few positions, and most of them not allowing for face-to-face contact.
Again, I am not considering porn as a sex primer for kids. As far as how "good" the performance is, it just depends on the movie. But I was thinking of it in terms of discovering new things to do, not to hone one's technique. Also, it is absolutely in no way difficult to find porn with kissing, at all.
Go read the Kama Sutra if you want't to learn more.
Yes, that is also an option. But don't you think the Kama Sutra is kind of a bad teacher-- I mean, I looked for the pages on establishing a good relationship with my partner, getting to know her, and then slowly progressing to sex. It totally ignores that these things ought to occur. I'm not even sure if the people in those pictures are supposed to know each other.
There is only so much anal sex somebody can see.
You've found that limit? I don't watch anal sex porn, myself, so I wouldn't know. But seriously, there is a LOT of porn out there. Of ALL tastes. Making these certain generalizations about porn is like making certain generalizations about what a comedy is based on only Adam Sandler movies or something.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
I'll make it simple. (none / 0) (#263)
by jjayson on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 09:51:36 PM EST

I don't think there is anything to be learned from porn. I don't think you will find anything interesting in it. I don't think that it can be of any education value. We are not going to agree on this, and I seriously doubt that you are right.

And where the fuck did I say anything about children? By the way though, a recent study came out saying that most high school kids are watching pornography to learn about sex.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]

Well, of course they are (none / 0) (#268)
by Greyjack on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 01:28:19 AM EST

By the way though, a recent study came out saying that most high school kids are watching pornography to learn about sex.

Given the dearth of actual useful information given out in sex ed classes, what else do you expect 'em to do? Ask their parents?

The issue of children aside, porn with educational value does exist. (That link is to a DVD; educational pornographic books also exist).

--
Here is my philosophy: Everything changes (the word "everything" has just changed as the word "change" has: it now means "no change") --Ron Padgett


[ Parent ]
educational pornography (none / 0) (#270)
by jjayson on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 02:59:24 AM EST

If you look up the thread a little, you will see me say: "Go read the Kama Sutra if you want't to learn more." Since I haven't see your "educational" video, I obviously cannot comment on it.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Yes, make it simple for me *please*. (none / 0) (#289)
by Dephex Twin on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 12:56:46 PM EST

I don't think that it can be of any education value. We are not going to agree on this, and I seriously doubt that you are right.
There is no right or wrong on this. How exactly would you define me being "wrong"? The only clear line I can see is, has anyone gained one shred of useful knowledge from any porn ever? The answer is certainly yes.
And where the fuck did I say anything about children?
Yowza! I just thought you might have been thinking of porn along the lines of educating someone who was totally unfamiliar with it, in which case porn doesn't exactly portray sex in the way that most people do it, or in the way that is actually the most pleasurable for both parties. So, in that sense, it isn't good as the sole educator. However, if you are of legal age to watch porn, and most likely have sexual experience, then it is very possible a porn will have, say, an idea for a scenario that would be fun to role-play, an outfit to wear, a position that you might not have thought of. Do you actually deny this is possible? The fact that your girlfriend and her sister might not want to have a dirty threesome is something that a mature, reasonably intelligent person can comprehend. Just because I can look at the Kama Sutra for certain sexual information (though that doesn't even cover it), and try to figure out what the diagrams are telling me to do, doesn't mean that porn can't do this for me instead, or in addition.

I know you don't like porn, and you don't get anything out of it personally, but phrases like "I think everyone can learn from porn" or "I don't think there is anything to be learned from porn" are dead on arrival. They are pretty meaningless statements.

Some people just wank to porn and that's all it is. Some people buy it as a couple or group, and watch it together. Some people do both. You get out of it what you want to.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
No it isn't (none / 0) (#192)
by spiralx on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 04:02:32 PM EST

The opposite of love it hate.

The opposite of love is indifference. Love and hate are far too close to be opposites.

Please let me reassure those who are leaning towards foreskin envy that your balls will start smelling long before the head of your penis does, foreskin o
[ Parent ]

Married (5.00 / 9) (#23)
by godix on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 12:35:07 AM EST

"You don't like Valentine's Day because you might be forced to show some affection"

I'm married. Of course I don't want to be forced to show some affection. If my wife caught me doing it I'd be killed, divorced, out half my stuff, and stuck with some bimbo who'd share affection with a married man.

"All people want to do on this site is fuck each other."

Just for the record, I have never once had even a slight stirring of sexual desire for you. At least not till just now.



Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.

[ Parent ]

I think he has kuro5hin confused... (none / 0) (#99)
by rodgerd on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 01:39:16 PM EST

with with Fark.

[ Parent ]
Forced to show affection? (4.80 / 5) (#24)
by coljac on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 12:48:28 AM EST

Hi jj.

You said

What a horrible attitude. You don't like Valentine's Day because you might be forced to show some affection or that if might remind you of something wonderful? Valentine's Day is day to celebrate love.
But isn't that just the point, it's a day where you are forced to show affection? Believe me, there is no shortage of romantic love between my wife and I, and we don't need to trivialize it through the mandatory purchasing of candy or flowers on a particular day. We express our feelings in our own natural way, not at the calendar-scheduled dictate of Hallmark. So I totally agree with akp, Valentine's day is a drag.

Also, your remark that all folks on k5 want to do is fuck each other is a bit hyperbolic. While it might seem that way (depending on your view of things) you have to expect that people will write about the more spicy, interesting side of things on k5 and keep their wonderful, boring romantic thoughts more to themselves on a forum like this. In any case, fuck on k5!

By the way, what's more harmful, sexuality or drug use? I find your views a little, shall we say, counter-intuitive.



---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey
[ Parent ]

true... (2.25 / 4) (#32)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 01:52:12 AM EST

So I totally agree with akp, Valentine's day is a drag.
You don't need the forced affection, but it doesn't mean that you should fight against it. I don't buy the standard chocolate and flowers either. The point is to make something special happen. However, fighting against, especially with the "I don't want to because somebody else said to" argument strikes me as somewhat teen-age. Basically go out and do it, have fun, and just think of it as a great excude to splurge.

Also, your remark that all folks on k5 want to do is fuck each other is a bit hyperbolic. While it might seem that way (depending on your view of things) you have to expect that people will write about the more spicy, interesting side of things on k5 and keep their wonderful, boring romantic thoughts more to themselves on a forum like this. In any case, fuck on k5!
My observation isn't based on what people write about, but how they react to what is written. However, I could flip it and say that I never see anybody writing a diary about how they want to fall in love or have a meaningful relationship, instead you mostly see diaries about people wanting to get laid. A total reversal of how it should be.

By the way, what's more harmful, sexuality or drug use? I find your views a little, shall we say, counter-intuitive.
Lumbping all drug use together isn't conductive to good reasoning. Why is drug use harmful? Alcohol is most physically destroying than ecstacy. Also, it tends to negatively effect people's outlook and behavior. I have yet to see ecstasy to turn anybody into a mean, nasty asshole.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
You happier now? (none / 0) (#66)
by kesuari on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:39:03 AM EST

However, I could flip it and say that I never see anybody writing a diary about how they want to fall in love or have a meaningful relationship, instead you mostly see diaries about people wanting to get laid. A total reversal of how it should be.

That's only because I don't write diaries. I don't care about sex... I've never had it... as far as I'm concerned, if I want to orgasm, I have a hand. (Before people say it's totally meaningless without a loving partner and guess what... I agree with you! Not that I've ever had it with a partner...)

But even when it's not Valentine's Day, the world seems intent on making me feel totally inadequate. I've never had a girlfriend (I'm a geek and have just finished at an all-boys school, so I may have an 'excuse'...). You talk to people and they're going on about how badly they feel because their significant other is hundreds of kilometres away, and all they want is to be there with them. And they don't seem to know how much that makes me hurt, because once you've had an SO, you seem to forget about the pain of before you ever did, or, more likely, you've never been in the same position (because they had their first at too young an age to be relevant).

I would kill for a girlfriend and couldn't care less if she didn't want to have sex.

And to all you people who've just had their hearts' broken because their SO walked out on them: yes, I'd love to. If you know how to swap my experiences for yours, I'd do so in a flash. (This offer is only good for the first two people, because I only know of one other who feels like me, but I don't know many people. I betcha theirs enough for all who want to swap to swap.)

[ Parent ]

you aren't inadequate (4.00 / 3) (#71)
by adequate nathan on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 10:09:58 AM EST

You're just suffering from the tension between your natural desire to get married at 16 (ancient human norm,) and our society's demands that you acquire an education and earning potential (takes 6 to 12 years more.) You don't get good at relationships by practice so much as you do by honesty and self-reflection.

A lot of those people who are slutting it up now will never have a stable family or home life. Don't measure yourself by those standards.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

"Ancient human norms". (none / 0) (#179)
by tkatchev on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 12:14:14 PM EST

Well, depends on your definition of "ancient" and "human".

AFAK the norm for late-Medieaval Europe is to get married at something like 27.

This is because back then marriage wasn't so much a "relationship" as a way of organizing your living space. That is, there was no point of getting married unless you had your own place to live in and a stable source of income.

Then again, back then people had an absolutely relaxed attitude towards sex, and celibacy was seen as a perfectly normal thing. There was no concept of a "sexual instinct" -- sex was a conscious choice you made. (Or didn't make, whatever.)

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

among the aristocracy (none / 0) (#182)
by adequate nathan on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 12:55:51 PM EST

What about the peasants?

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

I'm talking about the peasants here. (none / 0) (#196)
by tkatchev on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 04:32:08 PM EST

For the aristocracy, "anything goes" -- if you're an aristocrat, you have basically unlimited resources and time to do whatever the hell you want.

For the peasantry, though, life is much harsher and demanding -- if you don't have a house, that means that you will live on a street in a ditch. There aren't too many parents that would be content to allow their son's wife with kids to live in their house; especially if living conditions are already cramped and there are younger sons already growing up.

Which basically means that unless you have very rich parents, you only get married when you can provide things like housing and enough food to last you through the winter.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

love rant (3.00 / 2) (#35)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 03:01:53 AM EST

you speak in good terms with something truly evil what a fate to be condemned to! What is this wonderful thing you speak of? Truly? for myself, i have only once not been single on a valintines day - and both me and my significant other at the time had to work, as i remember it. all the other times, especially those one or two where my lover left me in late january- it was actualliy painful, watching all the couplery and frills of sexual activity dance by. Your absolutely right - there is such thing is romanticism. and if evil truly exists, the form of evil would be Love. if i had my way - Valintine's day would be dead, and the world would be a better place for it. as for myself, i would say that the porn that i've seen has not gone nearly far enough in hardening my heart - as it's exposure to love. Love of course, being that which preceeds heartbreak. I've been through it enough to know that there is nothing worse - 20 years of life so far as my only proof of this. The longer i have been going out with anyone, the harder it feels when it ends. and the effort put in, is less than the effort needed to make it through the heartbreak - it's a loosing game. Nothing lasts forever, and when things fall apart it's harder to put them back together. On any given valintines day now, i just want to die, or mabye just get so intoxicated that i'm not aware of the rest of the world for awhile [and i rarely ever get intoxicated-christmas, my birthday, and valintines day, yep] perhaps the reason that people don't express a core desire to fall in love any more is that we've gotten to the point where we are smart enough to know a loosing proposition when we see one? hm...well, i could, for fifteen minutes of "pleasure", go through eight solid months of gloom and dispair - or i could just avoid the whole concept altogether and live a relatively stable, and otherwise descent life. you will not become a better person by having your heart broken. think of columbine, think of all that which you would call evil in the world - how much of that would have not occurred had the purpotrator not fallen in love? all the catastrophes, murder, rape, and horror averted-and you are saying the world would be a better place in any way? i don't want you to live in my world. your "ability to love" only goes as far as your inability to think...truly are thinking and love even related at all? i've seen a common frame of mind from philosophers from Socrates all the way through to Angry Genius Boy and that is that love is a big distraction - and mutually exclusive to thinking. don't get me wrong - i'm not justifying one night stands - they are for the weak, and the stupid [or at least those who can't just take it any more- kind of like suicide]... you're right porn isn't love. it's a cheap substitute to make some of the physical urges hat underlie love dissapear, so that love cannot form. love in it's truest form is Oppression, Dominance, Controll, Sexual Desire, Security and a touch of Ritual - We seek something out there in the world that we can own - that will be ours, and no one elses. wan't proof of this? look at most of the love songs or poetry written in the at least past thousand years or so - if anyone would know what love is, it's the poets. "she's my best friends girlfriend, she used to be mine"-authoritative and controlling "you let me violate you"-obvious sexual dominance going on here- someone is ruining someone else i know these aren't exactly great examlpes, but do i need to go on? and don't think that it's just males which are bad for this, females are much worse, as unlike males, they actually care about love, instead of the stupid male urge to do nothing in life but sit around anf duck. i have yet to experience this 'ectsacy' drug yet, so i can't really argue that it may or may not be a better trip than alchohol, when used with lights, fruit, and other people. i'll get back to you once i have. mabye if you defined love as 'what happens when you throw a bunch of people, fruit and E in a room together, we might agree more, i think. in concluding, through, there is only one thing that first distracts a person to the point where nothing else can be concentrated on, and then afterwards makes a person cold, and that is love.
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
you speak in good terms with something truly evil (4.25 / 4) (#36)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 03:04:24 AM EST

what a fate to be condemned to! What is this wonderful thing you speak of? Truly? for myself, i have only once not been single on a valintines day - and both me and my significant other at the time had to work, as i remember it. all the other times, especially those one or two where my lover left me in late january- it was actualliy painful, watching all the couplery and frills of sexual activity dance by.

Your absolutely right - there is such thing is romanticism. and if evil truly exists, the form of evil would be Love. if i had my way - Valintine's day would be dead, and the world would be a better place for it.

as for myself, i would say that the porn that i've seen has not gone nearly far enough in hardening my heart - as it's exposure to love. Love of course, being that which preceeds heartbreak. I've been through it enough to know that there is nothing worse - 20 years of life so far as my only proof of this.

The longer i have been going out with anyone, the harder it feels when it ends. and the effort put in, is less than the effort needed to make it through the heartbreak - it's a loosing game. Nothing lasts forever, and when things fall apart it's harder to put them back together.

On any given valintines day now, i just want to die, or mabye just get so intoxicated that i'm not aware of the rest of the world for awhile [and i rarely ever get intoxicated-christmas, my birthday, and valintines day, yep]
perhaps the reason that people don't express a core desire to fall in love any more is that we've gotten to the point where we are smart enough to know a loosing proposition when we see one? hm...well, i could, for fifteen minutes of "pleasure", go through eight solid months of gloom and dispair - or i could just avoid the whole concept altogether and live a relatively stable, and otherwise descent life.

you will not become a better person by having your heart broken. think of columbine, think of all that which you would call evil in the world - how much of that would have not occurred had the purpotrator not fallen in love? all the catastrophes, murder, rape, and horror averted-and you are saying the world would be a better place in any way? i don't want you to live in my world.

your "ability to love" only goes as far as your inability to think...truly are thinking and love even related at all? i've seen a common frame of mind from philosophers from Socrates all the way through to Angry Genius Boy and that is that love is a big distraction - and mutually exclusive to thinking.

don't get me wrong - i'm not justifying one night stands - they are for the weak, and the stupid [or at least those who can't just take it any more- kind of like suicide]... you're right porn isn't love. it's a cheap substitute to make some of the physical urges hat underlie love dissapear, so that love cannot form. love in it's truest form is Oppression, Dominance, Controll, Sexual Desire, Security and a touch of Ritual - We seek something out there in the world that we can own - that will be ours, and no one elses. wan't proof of this? look at most of the love songs or poetry written in the at least past thousand years or so - if anyone would know what love is, it's the poets.

"she's my best friends girlfriend, she used to be mine"-authoritative and controlling "you let me violate you"-obvious sexual dominance going on here- someone is ruining someone else i know these aren't exactly great examlpes, but do i need to go on?
and don't think that it's just males which are bad for this, females are much worse, as unlike males, they actually care about love, instead of the stupid male urge to do nothing in life but sit around anf duck.
i have yet to experience this 'ectsacy' drug yet, so i can't really argue that it may or may not be a better trip than alchohol, when used with lights, fruit, and other people. i'll get back to you once i have. mabye if you defined love as 'what happens when you throw a bunch of people, fruit and E in a room together, we might agree more, i think.

in concluding, through, there is only one thing that first distracts a person to the point where nothing else can be concentrated on, and then afterwards makes a person cold, and that is love.



i think Internet Explorer 3.02 is deleting my -br- tags on preview. this isn't the first post which this has happened . odd.
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
Friend... (none / 0) (#55)
by synaesthesia on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 07:38:06 AM EST

...you misunderstand what love is.

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]
Nope (3.00 / 2) (#67)
by Stick on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:48:40 AM EST

He understands far too well.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
That aint love. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
by Verax on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:06:08 PM EST

hm...well, i could, for fifteen minutes of "pleasure", go through eight solid months of gloom and dispair - or i could just avoid the whole concept altogether and live a relatively stable, and otherwise descent life.

You don't understand what real love is. Many people don't.

Love does not have the glamorous appearance of sex on the movie screen. Love is what gets a mother out of bed to change her baby's diaper. That may sound lousy. But a lady, confined to bed, dying of cancer said, "what I wouldn't give just to change a messy diaper." That's love. On the surface it's not glamorous, so much so that many people won't even recognize it. But what it lacks in glamour it more than makes up for in meaningful fulfillment. Real love is hard work and selflessness. But real love is the only place where real happiness is to be found.

Consider Mother Theresa. Everyone I've ever talked to who has actually met her always tells me the same thing: "She's the happiest person I've ever met." She worked very, very hard. But she also knows what love really is.

So the lies here are that love is glamorous, and that pleasure is the same thing as happiness. What we all really want is happiness, but we tend to think that pleasure is the way we get it. But think: After watching porn and spanking off, or getting your girlfriend to "put out", are you really, truly, happy. Yeah, it feels great. But it's not where real happiness comes from.

Lastly, please examine what you've been thinking. Hey, baby, I'll put up with you if you make me feel good. But I'm not willing to give myself to you completely (openness to new life), and I'm not willing to give myself to you for good (marriage). And, quite frankly, I don't want you either. So, unless you're willing to put out, I'm better off single. That's not love.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
you have a strange idea of love (none / 0) (#171)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 02:03:28 AM EST

i somehow knew someone would pick that point out. that point was not meant for you, more or less - it was meant for the people who *would* think that sex is love. i touched on the 'sex is not love' thing allready, but i'll try again. because it isn't. but love contains sexual desire - make no doubts about it.

love is not just sex. love is a social construct - without a society to tell us what love is we would not know. In our sick and perverted society that means that love is more or less sex with a few dark, hardcore porn, platonic-christian twists such as added guilt, fun, responsibility and childrearing.

i myself know exactly what love is, even if i cannot manifest it in words [i'm not an speaker of good english]. love is that which preceeds heartbreak - which then follows you around. if anything love *is* heartbreak, and i just don't know it yet. mother teresa was then lucky - as with what she loved - she didn't live long enough to see it turn against her. there is no reason for me to believe that the people who she helped did not and are not going to in later life join the militaries of their local impoverished nations and then strike up and commit otherwise vile acts on others. no big deal, this is just an example. Your only hope is to die before your love hits - and failing this die before your love turns to heartbreak. if you can place your bets correctly mabye it would work in your favour. i prefer the 'slitting your wrists for fun' method as slightly less trecherous.
" So the lies here are that love is glamorous, and that pleasure is the same thing as happiness. What we all really want is happiness, but we tend to think that pleasure is the way we get it. But think: After watching porn and spanking off, or getting your girlfriend to "put out", are you really, truly, happy. Yeah, it feels great. But it's not where real happiness comes from. "

no most sexual activity doesnt feel great[actually, it does*] - pleasure is but the abscence of pain. i personally would love to live the rest of my life sex free, masturbation free - but unfortunately after 2 to 3 weeks without, there is a physical craving which manifests itself in strange ways. freudian slips become much more common. i find my eyes begin to wander to places they have no need of looking - and worst of all a constant throbbing urge to fuck.

it doesn't 'hurt', but under that above definition of pain, it fits.
because of the nature of it, however, it slowly seeds itself to the deeper end of your subconsious - having at most times no ability to resolve itself - it just goes deeper and deeper into yourself until you find yourself as a 40 year old making child porn with your kids while wearing baloon leather and looking at tentacle rape hentai. i personally prefer the two week by two week ritual of visiting autopr0n for an hour or so.

that, is not love. that, is sexual desire. you are talking about love. Love is much worse than sexual desire.

"Real love is hard work and selflessness. " i'm not sure to what extent we can communicate -our worlds are very different. i would call that pride, or mabye something else. but not love.

anyways i'm not awake yet, and i have studying to do. bah!
*for the record, i've never felt better, my entire life, than the one time i engaged in such intercourse. it was a hundred times better than anything else - and i can understand why some people hold sex above all else.
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
For what it's worth (long) (none / 0) (#273)
by Verax on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 09:24:03 PM EST

but love contains sexual desire - make no doubts about it.

Well, yes and no. Love between mother and child, or between members of a family does not contain sexual desire. Married love is different, and that's where sexual desire makes it even better.

However, I think that these days, sexual desire, coupled with a "crush" is too easily confused with what I would call real love. Unfortunately, in english, there is that one simple word "love" which has so many different meanings that it makes discussion difficult.

love is a social construct - without a society to tell us what love is we would not know.

I'll agree with that, but probably not in the way that you meant. We feel and recognize love by the examples around us, so, yes, society has something to do with it. But it's not something that society dreams up. We have a pretty good idea of what it means to treat someone well, and to have respect for their dignity as human beings. Even small children recognize and understand this intuitively; we don't have to program that into them. They know when someone is being impatient with them, when someone is treating them unfairly. They may not recognize some of the more grown-up issues, like why it really is loving to deny a six year old that chainsaw that he wanted for his birthday. But, basically, they get it naturally.

love is that which preceeds heartbreak - which then follows you around. if anything love *is* heartbreak, and i just don't know it yet.

In a sense, love is suffering. But one could easily (and incorrectly) turn that into "well, suffering is bad, so love is bad." One could easily get depressed, but, instead, try looking at it like this: A couple gets married and desperately wants children. Let's say they get one. This baby wakes them up in the middle of the night, crying. For the parents, lack of sleep, pain in the ears, and stinky diapers constitute suffering. At some point, the baby will get sick, as we all do. But one never knows how serious any given illnes will be, and, aside from the time and trouble and expense of getting medical attention, there is the additional suffering of worrying that perhaps the illness is very serious or life threatening. As the child grows, there are constant worries for the parents, electricity, drowning, poisons, cuts, broken bones or concussions from falling off of things, and so on. Later in life, there are the teenage issues: drugs, sexually transmitted diseases, car accidents, and the like. Later still, there is the sadness from the child leaving to college, or to start a family of their own, or just to go out and live life on their own. So, in the end, there is a tremendous amount of suffering that goes with being a parent. Yet, this is still, for most people, and contraty to what the media sells, the most satisfying, rewarding, and enriching thing that human beings do. It's what our parents did for us. Perhaps it's worth thinking about more deeply.

[...] pleasure is but the abscence of pain.

That sounds kinda poetic. But think about it; is that really true? I can be starving (pain), simply not hungry (absence of pain, but definitely not pleasure), or I can be enjoying a delicious home cooked meal (pleasure). I can be agitating a knotted muscle in my back (pain), or I can be relaxing so that the knot is not aggravated (absence of pain, but definitely not pleasure), or I can have that knot massaged (feels good, not just neutral).

i personally would love to live the rest of my life sex free, masturbation free - but unfortunately after 2 to 3 weeks without, there is a physical craving which manifests itself in strange ways. freudian slips become much more common. i find my eyes begin to wander to places they have no need of looking - and worst of all a constant throbbing urge [...]

I've been there myself, although often times much more like 3 days to a week and a half.

having at most times no ability to resolve itself - it just goes deeper and deeper into yourself until [...]

It sure feels that way, doesn't it? But that's actually the great lie. It actually does resolve itself, and, over time, has less and less of a hold on you. Although, when you fall, you have to start about 99% all over again

One has to be careful with the eyes and the mind, which is quit difficult these days. I could compare sexuality outside of marriage to an open wound, which should be cleaned, covered, and protected. Instead, everywhere we turn, we have (witout our even desiring it) dirt thrown on that wound and ground into it, constantly re-inflaming it: On the computer, smut is just a couple keystrokes and mouse clicks away. Most shows on television have a huge amount of sexual content. Even shows that don't have that sort of content are interrupted by commercials that do. Outside, there's billboards and bus-stop advertisements, and even in the checkout lines of the grocery store, there are "women's" magazines with really, really immodest covers. Also, the current norm for dress is quite immodest. All of these things constantly bombard us, making sure that we don't forget about sex for very long. And, in my weaker moments, even if something impure wasn't available, I'd go looking for it.

i'm not sure to what extent we can communicate -our worlds are very different.

Perhaps they are a little bit now, but not so much as you might think. It's been a lot of hard work, but it's been worth it. I had to get rid of my porn collection, and change a number of other habits that were occasions for me to fall. I also took encouragement from the story of Saint Augustine, a really good looking guy who had plenty of women throwing themselves at him. Of course it feels great, and it's really hard to say "no" to. He tried and struggled for many years before he got himself straightened out. But then he went on to be one of the great saints, and a Doctor of the church. At some point along the way, I converted from athiesm to being a Catholic, at which point I found out that confession helped tremendously. I can't explain why. All I can say is that it helped a lot.

i personally prefer the two week by two week ritual of visiting autopr0n for an hour or so.

At times, I was sorely tempted to let it go at that myself. Except it was a different pair of websites and some movies that I owned. But thinking about the fact that I would never want to see my mother, my sisters, or my nieces like that made me realize that I was being a hypocrite by trying to justify what I was looking at. That's why I didn't just accept what I was doing.

<hr>

"It is necessary to guard all your senses, particularly your eyes: they are the means by which all the fascination and charm of beauty and voluptuousness enter the heart. When fashion, as in our time, is towards provocation and exposes what formerly was even wrong to think about, caution and self restraint must be exercised. Whenever necessary you must look without seeing and see without thinking about it. " -- Padre Pio



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
re (none / 0) (#286)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 04:34:29 AM EST

<i>"...the most satisfying, rewarding, and enriching thing that human
beings do.
<BR>
"It's what our parents did for us"</i>...<BR>i'll start with this.  i don't
know about you, but i was an accident.  i should never have happened - and
i'll always have a distrust [from what was outright hatred] of my parents because of it.  If not for
them, none of what i've gone through over the past 20 years would have happened.  And since, i'd
say the whole ordeal was negative overall, and not worth going through [mabye it may have been
sans love, who knows...?]-  it's partially their fault.   mind you, i'm at fault for some of it - but the
game is clearly stacked against my favour...  and my life isn't all that bad, comparitively.  But
consider how many *other* accidents out there there are- i'd venture a guess that MOST People
become by this sort of way - how many single mothers are there? even among married couples,
how many either married because of incoming children or otherwise?  We have deep urges within
us, that are hard to stop sometimes -especiailly when both parties are willing, and a culture
surrounds [perhaps like the freelove, and similar ideaologies] that permits such frivilous behavior,
with no thought to the countereffects.  now, i think a lot of people have enough "descency" to once
they have created a person, to help that created person up through the years until they can be free
of the responsibilities.  or at least until they are too old to care.  but yes, generally, people are
mistakes - the lack of birth controll helps, i think.<BR><BR>
<BR><BR>
Love between mother and child?  i've seen the exact same zeal between teenage girls and their
various objects of affections - toys mostly.  this leads me to believe it's hardwired into
them... or possibly programmed into them through their childhood of romance-stories or otherwise
influence [possibly through the media].  i had similar emotive states, at one time - but then
again, i also could have at one point been found 'playing' with the nextdoor neighbor girl, and
all she would 'play' with were dolls.  fine enough, i figured.  but generally, i know right well
that the ideals of love, and all that is beautiful, have been pounded into me.  but mabye that's
just me.<BR>
but there's no reason why this love, should it exist, is not created, is there?
<BR><BR>
" "ml
out thinking about it." " <BR>
while i'm far from solving anything, i'd like to point out that not thinking about something got me ]and
mabye us both[ in the trouble to start with.  really, can you think about sex while being exposed to
sex?  or do we just stop thinking and feel everything as much as we can?
<BR><BR>
at this point in the conversation, i realized, as i was reading through the platonic diolouge
http://classics.mit.edu//Plato/phaedrus.html
phaedrus which paralells us partially,
i believe.
<BR><BR>
"sexual desire makes it better".  i was thinking about this.  how many people have you known to
have been in 'bad relationships'?  where they love the other person SO MUCH - and where does this
get them? beaten, perhaps.   i have heard so many instances of people so plainly not wanting any
sexual contact, but being more or less forced into it from their significant other, they after all are a
couple / married / etc...?  but it's ok, and they put up with it becuase they love them...and they feel
that their significant other loves them...and there is nothing better in the world for them other than to
stay exactly where they are, without being helped nothing.  sexual desire, if anything, makes an
allready unstable position worse...and all but a few relationshps are most definitely unstable.
sexual desire on both ends, perhaps, but more often than not, the addition of sexual desire into the
mix only decays the whole...
<BR><BR>
have you ever met anyone who falls so deeply in love with someone, that nothing else matters to
them, and then slowly as time goes by reduces that love to a bitter feeling, which inevidably breaks
down to a breakup?...and they stay bitter for awhile, before loneliness creeps in, then they are
swept off their feet and the process begins again?
<BR><BR>
i will agree that the english 'love' is far from adequate - but perhaps it is not.  i prefer to think of love
as the combination of many things, all working in harmony towards a goal, an 'evil' goal perhaps, but
a unified effort nonetheless.  Once again, however, if you were to do an autopsy of the word 'love' i'm
sure that you'd find just as many 'rape', 'unwanted' and 'despair beyond last hope' references as you
would anything positive.
<BR><BR>
"But it's not something that society dreams up. "<BR>
you speak as though society dreams anything up.  if anything, such 'dreaming up' would be a core
desire of many becoming a reality - what is so hard about this?  a core amount of some people feel
sex to be 'dirty' [which it is...but not in that way] - and sex becomes taboo.  a core desire of people
feel to want sex, but they can't have sex, so a 'love' state is created.  a core desire of people want
to have love, but they can't so another type of emotion appears which applies to those which you
cannot fuck...like members of the same gender, for example.  the 'business only' relationship
becomes a freindship, which is as far towards 'love' as circumstances allow...
<BR><BR>
"Even small children recognize and understand this intuitively"<BR>
irrelevant.  anything and everything childish is stomped out of us with the sheer effectiveness of a
meat grinder.  Even if children do initially love - i would point to the Odepious[sp?] complex, first,
and if that fails to convince you say that at least of the adult world, little remains of childhood except
for perhaps what childhood 'should' be as fed into us by either the media, or the people around us.
our opinion / inner emotions matter not.
<BR><BR>
i have even brought up an argument similar to yours here on k5, about the abscence of pain and
pain.  however, i can't bring myself to fully agree.  i do know that most of us take for granted how
"good" regular healthiness feels - this past week i had something go wrong inside my digestive
tract, god knows what, which kept me in the washroom, at work, for some hour and a half - a good
part of a shift.  i would have sold my soul to get away from that pain - and it wasn't all that much
compared to say, being burned alive or something.  perspective may be worth something, perhaps, i
don't know.  but healthiness feels good...even if we don't feel it...
<BR><BR>
"I've been there myself, although often times much more like 3 days to a
week and a half. " that was the crumbling point, then.  even if everything else you say is right -
which it very well may be, unfortunately, if sexual desires are stronger than willful ones, and there is
more than one person in the situation who has these desires, and one of them can get pregnant,
even if on accident - then a child can be created.  unfortunately, love enters the situation, at some
point - and unfortunately love is unstable, and leads to heartbreak...i think i've forgotten where
<BR><BR>
"It sure feels that way, doesn't it? But that's actually the great lie.
It actually does resolve itself, and, over time, has less and less of a
hold on you. Although, when you fall, you have to start about 99% all
over again "<BR><BR>
where does it go?  deeper inside!  we just don't notice it any more - becoming like the regular smell
of our bodies, or the regular taste of local water...
interesting point, however, i'll give you that - for the first time i've seen a potential benifit to that sort
of way of thinking....
<BR><BR>
yes.  i have seen the porn of mainstream media - with no connection to the internet, and living
alone, with all my time spent studying and working [and talking to no one really, at work, and really
doing nothing other than those things] - i had no impact at all by any advertisement [i had no
mailing address, or email addrss that i was awnsering - nor a phone line.  how were they going to
spam me?] or anything.<BR>
and then i went to the mall. <BR>
i almost had a nervous breakdown then and there<BR>
i was so used to my study habbits where i would take in all the information around me and think
about everything, moving slowly through massive amounts of written data, but attempting vainly to
remember and comprehend all of it.  the mall was like an overflow, an explosion of activity and
meaning, which i was not really ready for...<BR>
almost all of  which had to do with sex, at some level or other.<BR>
i think this is offtopic, i'll stop now..
<BR><BR>
i'm sure my sister, in this age, will make pr0n.  she's young, and popular. i wouldn't want to see it - i
don't think she's very "hot", [even if it didnt feel wrong somehow...] but i *would* want others to.
its' only fair :).  i woudln't want to see my mother becuase, well...she's *old*. [i may be in for older
women, but not *that* old...]
<BR><BR>
interesting religion reference.  i'll say though, that before i converted to atheism from catholic-
christian, i was much, much worse.  i was a five star romantic.  i was a lot younger, but i had a lot
potential 'evils' in me, bred into me by the church, and it's ideas, which may be even the underlying
cause of this yet!<BR><BR>i'm getting lost in this conversation.  either this means that you are
making ground or i'm getting bored.  i'll come back later, or mabye i wont.  then again, mabye i
shouldn't respond to k5 posts first thing in the morning, before eating.  hrmm...
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
Lengthy reply. (none / 0) (#304)
by Verax on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 10:10:37 PM EST

i don't know about you, but i was an accident. i should never have happened - and i'll always have a distrust [from what was outright hatred] of my parents because of it.

This "accident" think is really sad to me. Wouldn't it have made a difference to know that you were wanted from the start? I think this illustrates what is so hard for many people to see. In general, it is subtle, but to you it's not because you recognize it so clearly in your own life. This separation of sex from procreation leads to situations like yours. This is part of why contracteption is contrary to Catholic teaching; people like you get really hurt by it. Contraception fails. It's not the lack of contraception that's the problem, but rather the false sense of "security" which makes for the hard cases. Without contracteption, it's clear what sex can lead to, and by having sex, you accept that possibility. But with contraception, there is this sense that a child can't happen and shouldn't happen, which makes things extra difficult for the child that has the nerve to happen anyway. So, to you, there is a clear difference between your parents being open to the possibility of you vs. them being definitely opposed to your existence.

I'm sure your parents aren't perfect, only because none are. But perhaps you recognize that by raising you, they suffered through sleepless nights and dirty diapers, and worry, and loss of personal freedom, and so on. So it's not just a matter of being "decent." They, in at least some degree, love you (in the sense of "love" that I have been using).

I don't mean to say this as a self-righteous "I told y'all so" about the Catholic teachings on contraception and abortion. I just think that you are in a unique kind of situation where you could "get it."

You say that things are stacked against you. On the one hand, who likes to be in that situation? But on the other hand, if everything is handed to you on a silver platter, and all the answers are given you, and everything is stacked in your favor, then what's the point? Where's the glory in being on top of the world if it required no work to get there? Being a Saint is easy when there's no temptations. It is through applying ourselves that life takes on meaning and becomes fulfilling.

"sexual desire makes it better". i was thinking about this. how many people have you known to have been in 'bad relationships'? where they love the other person SO MUCH - and where does this get them? beaten, perhaps. i have heard so many instances of people so plainly not wanting any sexual contact, but being more or less forced into it from their significant other, they after all are a couple / married / etc...?

What I meant by "it" is love in the sense that I have been using. I think if you'll examine these "bad relationships," you'll see a common thread. You mention some of this yourself. Being beaten, forced into unwanted sex, are these really loving things? Not by the definition that I've been using. So, it's not love that's the problem. It's the lack of it: the absence of self control, the absence of truly wanting what is best for the other person, the selfishness of using someone else as a means to an orgasm. I agree that sex can make a bad situation worse. But I still insist that sex done as a true expression of love only makes real love even better. "

so deeply in love with someone, that nothing else matters to them, and then slowly as time goes by reduces that love to a bitter feeling, which inevidably breaks down to a breakup?

Again, this isn't love in my sense of the word. You're interested in that special someone because of how they make you feel, not because you want what's best for them. This "crush" is often called love, especially in poetry and music, and entertainment in general. But when the crush wears off, as it always will, if there isn't real love underneath, it becomes obvious that two people (if the crush was mutual) were just using each other for their own gratification. How could that realization not cause bitterness?

On the other hand, as alien as this might sound in our culture, what about this? Get to actually know and care about someone without sex. Do the loving thing by not forcing them into sex (if they are unwilling), or tempting them into it (if they are interested). Build a genuine friendship. If "let's just be friends" has a sour ring to it, consider that perhaps the motives are not 100% pure. If love reaches the point where there is a genuine desire to give one another to each other exclusively, permanently, and open to the possibility that the real love could give rise to children to be raised lovingly, then why not hold off from sex a little longer and get married? That way, even when sex isn't an option (illness, late pregnancy, "that time of the month", yeast infection, etc.), there's still the real love there. There's less temptation to get bitter about "not getting any" because this is someone that you truly love and want to be around, as evidenced by the togetherness without sex before marriage.

but healthiness feels good...even if we don't feel it..

Been there too. Had a gall stone, without warning, block the bile duct, resulting in a gall bladder stretched several times it's normal size, major back-pressure into the liver, and the beginnings of shredding of the bile duct where the stone was. About all you can do is vomit and pass out. That was probably the worst encounter I've ever had with physical pain. And I do know what you mean about how it feels good to be healthy. But I would suggest that health is a good thing, and when we recognize what is good, we can't help but feel good. So, in that sense, I am inclined to agree.

where does it go? deeper inside! we just don't notice it any more - becoming like the regular smell of our bodies, or the regular taste of local water...

If you mean deeper inside in the sense of getting used to drinking water, then I agree. But if you mean deeper inside like a cancer that is growing unnoticed and will cause your death simply because you didn't notice it, then I disagree. I don't think I'm going to climb a water tower and start shooting simply because I ignored that I got used to drinking crappy tasting water and didn't pay attention.

living alone, with all my time spent studying and working [and talking to no one really, at work, and really doing nothing other than those things]

I found that this set up was the absolute worst for me in trying to get away from pornography and the associated habits. It becomes much easier when you have the fellowship of good folks. Lonliness, boredom, and stress all make things much more difficult. This is where we see some of the true value in family and friends.

anything and everything childish is stomped out of us with the sheer effectiveness of a meat grinder. [ ... ] our opinion / inner emotions matter not.

Not all of us. When I think of some of the people that I admire and care for most, the child is still very much there. Not the imperfect parts of childhood, such as selfishness. Put the good parts: perserverance, lack of an agenda, being fully aware and available to the present moment, being willing to love completely and without worrying about the hurts that can come from doing so. These are not people just walking around as empty shells, with no independent thoughts or feelings. As for our opinions/inner emotions mattering... well, they do to many people. But, in a society where human beings (both the very young and the old) can legally be killed simply because they are inconvenient, how much can we really expect as far as care for the feelings of individuals?

i'm sure my sister, in this age, will [willingly accept money for being recorded on video, using her body to extract semen from guys]. she's young, and popular.

"pr0n" is a cute euphamism, but let's be honest enough to say it like it is. Also, that sounds awfully jaded on your part. Do you honestly mean that? Does youth and popularity necessarily have to degredation and "stupid flying semen tricks"?

i wouldn't want to see it - i don't think she's very "hot", [even if it didnt feel wrong somehow...] but i *would* want others to. its' only fair :).

I'm afraid I don't follow. Why would you want others to, and how is that fair?

i woudln't want to see my mother becuase, well...she's *old*. [i may be in for older women, but not *that* old...]

I'm gussing that you're joking. But I also think you've missed the point (possibly deliberately). Suppose, for the sake of argument, that at some point in history, when your mother was younger, that she was really "hot". Would you really want to see her doing what you see in pornography? Or, if need be, think of some female somewhere that you truly care for. What about her doing those things for the entertainment of others? Or, if you too jaded for even that, then suppose, hypothetically, that there really is a woman out there that you will marry and care about very deeply. Presumably she's somewhere in the world right now. How would you feel then if you could see back to the present and see guys trying to get her in the sack, or to participate in filming some nastyness? I think that if you're intellectually honest, you'll see that there's something fundamentally wrong about that because that is beneath her dignity as a human being. But she's not any more or less human than the rest of humanity, so pornography is beneath their dignity as well. But, again, I guess that if we live in a world where people are ok with the fact that it is legal to kill people just because they are inconvenient, then perhaps we can't be expected to understand what human dignity is all about. I've gained more appreciation for it over the last couple of years, but suspect that I have much further to go.

before i converted to atheism from catholic- christian, i was much, much worse. i was a five star romantic. i was a lot younger, but i had a lot potential 'evils' in me, bred into me by the church, and it's ideas

Would you care to elaborate? What's wrong with being a romantic? What "evils" did the church breed into you, and how did they do it?



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
can of worms. (none / 0) (#305)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 11:28:51 AM EST

so many questions, so so many questions...
i want to reply, but i know you're smart enough to take short-and-quick replies and turn them upside down. i appear to have a few contradictions within, which need thinking about. as for that 'hypothetical' situation, it won't happen - i won't let it. if it does happen, it's allready the worst case scenario, and all i could do is attempt to help out the inevidable offspring until it is strong enough to either realize why suicide may be the better option, or to get out of my life-cone. and then i'd slowly wait to die... [ no more than 68,328,000 minutes left now...i can wait. ]...no more, no less.

"pornography" is english. "pr0n" is 1338. i don't speak english.

as for some female i truly care of...mabye this question may have been more meaningful had i actually have talked to any of them within the past little while, i think i had a 5 minute conversation with one of my freinds, seven or so months ago...other than that i've been completely isolated from them. in fact, i don't think i've even talked to a single female in almost a week. mabye even more than that...

as for why catholocism/christianity/romanticism/plato is evil..? i can barely explain, and my attempts would likely have holes big enough for a tourbus to drive through... however, readings of Geneaology of Morality, Twighlight of the Idols, the Will to power, and almost anything else by Neitzsche may be helpful...
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
A couple more questions. (none / 0) (#309)
by Verax on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 06:13:44 PM EST

i want to reply, but i know you're smart enough to take short-and-quick replies and turn them upside down.

I'm not all that smart. And I'm not out to turn arguments upside down just for the sake of turning arguments upside down. If I see something that doesn't seem consistent with truth, I like to examine it. Sometimes I'm wrong and it makes me look at my own model of reality more closely. Sometimes the statement in question is not correct, but in discussing it I still get a clearer sense of things. Either way, I value insight, and discussion on k5 has been an excellent way to get some.

"pr0n" is 1338.

I don't understand. What does 1338 mean?

as for why catholocism/christianity/romanticism/plato is evil..? i can barely explain, and my attempts would likely have holes big enough for a tourbus to drive through...

Again, I find that discussing things helps crystalize my own vague thoughts, and helps me weed out the errors in my thinking. As for the big holes, wouldn't it be nice to either see clearly that the holes are there because the thinking is incorrect, or to have those holes closed up and be able to feel better that thinking is correct and you're standing on solid ground?

almost anything else by Neitzsche may be helpful

That presents me with two problems. First, I'm quite unfamiliar with Nietzsche's works. About all I know is a quote or two. I think his works are quite large. I don't have time to take on a new reading hobby. I'm trying to finish school and graduate on time, so my time is quite limited. The second problem is worse than the first. I think Nietzsche has passed away; so I can't ask him questions about his thinking. I do best when interacting with someone who "gets it." In this case, that sounds like you. Is there one concrete point of his that you would care to help me "get," or would help illustrate one of your points that I'm not getting?



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
oh my gawd (4.66 / 3) (#48)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:37:10 AM EST

everything in moderation. this post is not moderation.

it is entirely possible to get hung up on the mechanics of sex and forget about the human bonds involved.

but just as bad is this bozo jjayson, who is hung up on the human emotional bond, and forgets that basically, we're just a bunch of monkeys with genitals and hormones and a psychosexual procreative urge.

both sex and love exist. the idea is to float through both and not get hung up on one or the other. obsessing on either extreme is dangerous to your mental well-being and the mental well-being of those close to you.

for every porn-addled freak out there who is addicted to the visceral side of sex and is dangerous to everyone in a relationship with them, there are trolls like this jjayson, who's prudishness is just as dangerous to everyone in their society.

whose impulse to censor and deny sexuality and porn leads to shame, guilt, violence, and worse.

to deny your sexual side or to deny the appeal of porn to human nature in general is folly just as stupid and dangerous as to deny your emotional side or to deny love. the way this jjayson rants on and on is quite frightening.

i genuinely fear for anyone involved with this person.

jjayson: you need therapy, you really do. this is not a rhetorical ploy on my part. i genuinely think you need professional psychiatric help.

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

hung up on the emotional bond? (1.00 / 1) (#109)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:29:23 PM EST

That is the essence of sex, "making-love." The physical bits what makes it go, but not what gives it life.

How am I prudish, because I frown upon pornography? I didn't know that pictures of people debasing themselves was the new yardstick to measure these thigs. You don't know what I am like in a relationship, but please, assume all you want.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]

i know enough about you (3.00 / 3) (#118)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 03:04:36 PM EST

You don't know what I am like in a relationship, but please, assume all you want.

i have heard enough of your words to send a shudder down my spine. that is all i ever want to know about you. from experiences i have had in my life i know exactly where the rest of your folly leads. i genuinely fear for those close to you. you do not live a life of moderation. you have a fascist deathgrip on a bad absolutist approach to human relationships. and i don't think you will ever let go. you frighten me.
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

"Making love" (5.00 / 4) (#121)
by Dephex Twin on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 03:40:20 PM EST

That is the essence of sex, "making-love."
And the essence of dying is "no longer being with us", which is why leaving the room is considered such a morbid activity.

I always thought "making love" was a euphemism, because people don't want to talk about the grunting-and-groaning sex. You're prudish because you not only use this euphemism, but you buy into it to an absurd degree.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
More like "Making babies" (5.00 / 3) (#129)
by ChuckVA on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:18:56 PM EST

That is the essence of sex, "making-love." The physical bits what makes it go, but not what gives it life.
Actually, the essence of sex is "making babies," driven by the instinct to procreate. Love is a separate thing entirely -- both the culmination of a desire to be deeply understood, and drives geared around protecting and raising children.

How am I prudish, because I frown upon pornography? I didn't know that pictures of people debasing themselves was the new yardstick to measure these thigs. You don't know what I am like in a relationship, but please, assume all you want.
Why do you find sex debasing or degrading?

Chuck

[ Parent ]

i am really in total shock (4.60 / 10) (#52)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:59:55 AM EST

i can not believe this person. they have something against porn but they promote ecstacy??!!

i like marijuana, i've tried my share of illicit drugs, but ecstacy genuinely frightens me.

parkinson's

mark my words. when the current crop of early 1990s rave partiers begin to hit their 40s and 50s, we will see an epidemic of parkinson's disease. ecstacy permanently damages dopamine receptors in the brain. ecstacy is NOT like cocaine, marijuana, heroin, etc. it is entirely new, used in large pharmalogical quantities by humans only since the 1980s! other drugs have been in use by humans for thousands of years. their longterm effects are WELL KNOWN.

i am not an anti-drug prude. i am not a right wing "drugs lead to terrorism" moron. it is just that i know a little too much about biochemstiry to trust my brain to such an untested chemical. we have no longterm experience with it!

mark my words, when the parkinson's epidemic begins to hit the early 1990s rave set around the year 2020, i think ecstacy will go the way of absinthe from the 1890s (causes permanent liver damage) and other psychoactive chemicals that humans have discovered throughout history and discarded because they have proven to be too dangerous.

do you think i am spreading fud? a party pooper? a player hater on the ecstacy scene because i'm not a part of it? i have tried plenty of psychoactive compounds in my life. i am no stranger to a good time. learn about serotonin, dopamine, acetylcholine, norepinephrine. learn some biochemistry. then read up on ecstacy's PERMANENT effects on dopamine receptors. then you tell me if this SPECIFIC drug mdma doesn't scare the bejesus out of you. drug use in general doesn't bother me, ecstacy DOES.

jjayson: you rant against porn and you promote ecstacy? you are seriously one fucked up bozo. i mean, you sound genuinely psychologically damaged. you have done enough brain damage to yourself.

please, please, nobody listen to this basket case.

jjayson: get some professional help. this is not rhetorical posturing on my part. i honestly think you are brain damaged.

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Everything in moderation (none / 0) (#54)
by synaesthesia on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 07:34:33 AM EST

If you only ever take ecstasy on Valentine's day, I doubt you'll do yourself more damage than if you get baked once a week. Yes, I know about serotonin and dopamine; I also know about the relationship between studies, pharmaceutical companies and law, and between use and abuse.

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]
oh bejesus (4.50 / 6) (#57)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 08:12:13 AM EST

I also know about the relationship between studies, pharmaceutical companies and law

oh fer chris sake man

pharmaceutical companies??!! can we drop the ideological posturing for once!!??

i'm talking about PERMANENT DOPAMINE RECEPTOR DAMAGE

i am not fronting for glaxo welcome! i am not fronting for nancy reagan!

this is not about any of that shit. this is about doing permanent damage to your brain. try some psilocybin once a year. try khat once a year. try salvia divinorum once a year. i'm all for it.

but stay away from the ecstacy man. ecstacy IS SCARY SHIT PERIOD.

hello!??

permanent dopamine receptor damage? you want to play that game? you like parkinson's?

i am not standing on some ideological stump here! this is not about you or my distrust of big goverment or big companies and their fucking propaganda. this is not about teenage rebellion against authority by embracing anything just because someone old and in power said it was bad for you. this is a cry for some reason!

wake the fuck up!
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

No offense (4.25 / 4) (#93)
by trhurler on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 01:08:57 PM EST

But you're overreacting just a little bit. Remember, what we call x was a prescription medication for quite a while back in the early 80s. People took a lot of it, over a prolonged period of time. Are their brains altered? Yes. Are they suffering horrible long term symptoms? Not really. I've never taken the stuff, and I probably won't, but I'm no more afraid of taking it once a month than I am a lot of prescriptions people take every day. I'll be the first to say that I feel sorry for people who take it every day and end up emotionally dependent on it, and I'm sure they'll suffer down the road somehow, which is unfortunate, but this Chicken Little act is pretty stupid.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
onward (3.50 / 2) (#102)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:02:07 PM EST

make believe everyone has 1000 dopamine receptors when they are born. and parkinson's symptoms appear when you only have 500 dopamine receptors left. all of us, as we age, lose receptors. the rate is different for everyone. someone like michael j. fox is unlucky enough, through genes and/ or environment, to experience dramatic loss at a young age.

say by the age of 80 you would be down to 600 receptors through normal means. depending upon who you are, every ecstacy pill you take represents the loss of 1 receptor. for others, it might represent 2 receptors, or 5 receptors, or 10. take 10 pills and by the age of 80 you could have parkinsons. 10x10-100. 600-100=500.

sound like nothing to worry about? how many should you take before you begin to worry? are you someone who loses receptors slowly? or someone who loses them naturally real fast? are you someone who loses 10 receptors with every pill? or 1 receptor? do you want to get parkinson's when you are 54? how about when you are 63? which sounds reasonable?

you want to take these gambles and risks with parkinson's disease? go ahead. it is your body.

excuse me if i call you a fucking moron if you do.

chicken little indeed.

Are their brains altered? Yes. Are they suffering horrible long term symptoms? Not really.

how the hell do you know? they haven't gotten that old yet genius. when the pioneers of the ecstacy scene reach their elderly years and you see a news story about a rise in parkinson's among previous ecstacy users, will you eat your words for me?

I'm no more afraid of taking it once a month than I am a lot of prescriptions people take every day.

show me another drug that permanently damages dopamine receptors like mdma does. you can't. none exists. i have nothing against recreational drug use. if i did, i would be a hypocrit. mdma bothers me SPECIFICALLY because i know something about biochemistry. so can we leave the sweeping generalizations aside about all drug use, prescription or otherwise? mdma has SPECIFICALLY been PROVEN to cause PERMANENT damage. this is not chicken little. and if i am overreacting, good! maybe some moron will wake up and realize what they are doing to themselves!
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Actually... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
by trhurler on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:17:04 PM EST

Most of the really serious mood altering drugs have permanent effects on brain chemistry; the difference is, we don't understand many of them as well as we do this one. In any case, you're assuming way too much. We don't know that Parkinson's is solely about dopamine receptors, and we don't know the math even if it is, and we don't know what treatments may come along down the road(many permanent effects are actually reversible if you know how to do it,) and in reality, we don't even know for a fact exactly how mdma works; we just think we do.

And when I mention the math, that part is serious. We know mdma has some negative effects on dopamine receptors. We do not know "how many" there are to any precise degree, nor "how bad" the effects of mdma are, or aging, and so on. It may be that mdma is on average many, many times worse than natural aging, which would make it very bad indeed - or it may be that in reality, mdma use over a long timespan would at most maybe add the equivalent of a few years of aging, in which case it might not be a big deal.

I'll grant you this: caution is well advised, as is serious moderation for those who choose to use this drug(I certainly wouldn't use it more than a few times a year, even if I were inclined to use illegal substances, which I'm not for various reasons that'd make more sense if you knew me in real life.) However, it is far from the worst substance people are using; have you looked at the actual biochemical effects of even occasional use of the stronger stimulants out there? Those'll throw your brain chemistry out of whack a lot faster than mdma(and the "reversibility" of the effect is at best unproven and in truth largely merely assumed,) and yet we're feeding them to military pilots like candy.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
you are right (none / 0) (#113)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:47:34 PM EST

you are right, there are worse chemicals out there.

what irks me though is the popular image of ecstacy as harmless, when it is really more harmful than a whole host of other "harder" drugs. these kids are sliding themselves towards early parkinson's.

it's like getting a permanent tattoo of a snake on your forehead. if you get older and change your ways, you are kind of stuck with your youthful indiscretions on your forehead. you make one stupid mistake in your youth and you are permanently, unrevocably, doomed. at least with other "harder" drugs you are dealing with a bad punk haircut/ dye job. you can grow that out in a few months.

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

You lack perspective (none / 0) (#125)
by synaesthesia on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 04:15:34 PM EST

Driving a car significantly increases your chance of dying. I take gambles every day. If I didn't my life would be the poorer for it.

On the one hand, you start your analysis with "Make believe...". On the other hand, you say that Ecstasy use will definitely bring forward the onset of Parkinson's. WTF?!

When I talk about the relationship between studies, pharmaceutical companies and law, I am not talking about protecting yourself from the government using a tinfoil hat, I am talking about sponsorship. Studies are paid for by some interested party or another. The truth is bent, or sometimes, outright lies are told. Ever seen "Reefer Madness"? Still smoking?

I never said that Ecstasy was harmless. I said I doubted that taking it once a year would do you much harm. If you disagree, I ask one thing from you. Show me the study which demonstrates a correlation between taking Ecstasy once a year and the early onset of Parkinsonism.

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

sigh (none / 0) (#130)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:23:21 PM EST

there is healthy distrust of government and big business.

and then there is rabid mistrust of government and big business such that it permeates your every perception. you seem to be going out on a limb in the direction of paranoid schizophrenia about conspiratorial anti-drug propaganda to continue to think mdma use is ok.

i am a recreational drug user. i could care less about the morality of mdma use, i could care less about the sociological significance, i am only dealing with the cold hard biochemical truth of mdma use- not thc, not psilocybin, not morphine, mdma and only mdma.

this is science my friend. just because csx makes steel doesn't mean that the melting point of steel as reported by csx is a corporate manipulated half truth. it's still the truth.

mdma destroys dopamine receptors.

end of story.

you go ahead and roll the dice.

when your hand starts shaking years from now, remember me.

your folly is your pride. you will not admit you might be wrong. someone like michael j. fox will understand what you are risking and putting on the line for the sake of your blind pride. i don't think you appreciate what you are risking.

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

The melting point of steel (none / 0) (#147)
by synaesthesia on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 07:43:05 PM EST

For the study under discussion, when you say, "the brain", you mean, "the brain of a monkey given intravenous MDMA at a dosage of LD20".

Let me ask you again: which study is your assertion that taking Ecstasy (in humans, very occasionally, in small doses, orally) destroys dopamine receptors based upon?

It's like csx telling me that steel is unsuitable to make boxes for long-term storage in 40 degree conditions, because when they heated steel boxes up to 2000 degrees all of them melted.

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

eh, your analogy is flawed. (none / 0) (#157)
by groove10 on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 10:29:14 PM EST

Sorry to point it out, but steel at 40C have been tested (and the properties very well understood) while the effects of nominal amounts of orally taken MDMA has not. Pretty simple. I don't take drugs (well except alcohol, and some ibuprofin) but I see no reason for people to fuck up their own brain. That's my two cents.
Do you like D&D? How bout text-based MMORPGs? You need to try Everwars. It's better than shooting smack!
[ Parent ]
Whatever! (none / 0) (#163)
by synaesthesia on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 12:21:41 AM EST

Perhaps I can pick a value of 'long-term' to suit your needs?

I see no reason for people to fuck up their own brain either and, like you, I see no evidence for it. It remains to be seen whether circletimessquare can come up with any.

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

all i can say (1.00 / 2) (#174)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 08:59:24 AM EST

all i can say is how many times do i have to say mdma permanently destroy dopamine receptors?

i don't know why you can't get over that. it's hard to argue with that.
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

you guys (none / 0) (#178)
by jred on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 12:06:36 PM EST

just need to smoke a big fat joint & chill out :D
jred
[ Parent ]
True (none / 0) (#181)
by synaesthesia on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 12:40:38 PM EST

But circletimessquare also needs to bosh an E, because otherwise how can s/he make an accurate risk/benefit assessment?!

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]
parkinson's (1.00 / 2) (#183)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 01:45:09 PM EST

when your hand begins to shake, get back to me

smoke as many blunts as you want, thc doesn't DESTROY DOPAMINE RECPETORS

i mean, what kind of risk assessment do you friggin need??!!

  1. dopamine receptor here
  2. take e
  3. dopamine receptor not here
gee... let's do a risk assessment

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

i mean c'mon! wake the fuck up!
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

fact (none / 0) (#187)
by synaesthesia on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 02:10:25 PM EST

circletimessquare is a troll.

end of story.

1. troll not here
2. circletimessquare arrives
3. troll here

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

dopamine troll (1.00 / 2) (#190)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 03:03:36 PM EST

mdma kills dopamine receptors
mdma kills dopamine receptors
mdma kills dopamine receptors
mdma kills dopamine receptors
mdma kills dopamine receptors
mdma kills dopamine receptors
mdma kills dopamine receptors
mdma kills dopamine receptors
mdma kills dopamine receptors
mdma kills dopamine receptors
mdma kills dopamine receptors

there i am

the happy dopamine troll

spreading truth everywhere i go ;-P lol

you don't have to like me

i can be labelled troll and ignored by you completely

but what about the truth i am telling you?

is that going to go away?

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Show... me... the study (none / 0) (#191)
by synaesthesia on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 03:47:02 PM EST

The reason I call you a troll is because you keep repeating yourself over and over again without addressing the points I am raising.

Show! Me! The! Study!

Since you don't seem to be bright enough to have spotted the reductio ad absurdem I made in my last comment, I'll spell it out for you: Simply stating that 'mdma kills dopamine receptors' over and over again does not demonstrate that occasional, low-dosage, oral ecstasy use in humans will lead to an increased likelihood of parkinsonism in the lifetime of an individual.

SHOW
ME
THE
STUDY

Humans can be struck by many terrible afflications throughout their lives: blindness at birth, multiple sclerosis at forty, parkinsonism at sixty, or you might get run over by a bus tomorrow. I'd rather embrace my life and live it to the full now than spend it running scared of pseudoscientific false correlations. I don't know about parkinsonism, but I sure am glad not to be in your condition, having already lost (if indeed you ever had) your faculties of reasoning altogether.

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

reasoning (2.00 / 1) (#195)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 04:24:14 PM EST

I'd rather embrace my life and live it to the full now than spend it running scared of pseudoscientific false correlations. I don't know about parkinsonism, but I sure am glad not to be in your condition, having already lost (if indeed you ever had) your faculties of reasoning altogether.

you insult my ability to reason. and you accuse me of spreading fud.

so follow my reasoning here and tell me where it fails. and then tell me if i am spreading fud, or just common sense.

there is no study, anywhere, that shows that parkinsonism results from mdma use.

why? because such a study is IMPOSSIBLE.

why? other drugs- morphine, cocaine, marijuana, etc., have been in use by thousands of human beings for millenia. their long term effects are well understood.

when did we start using mdma?

the 1980s! no one has lived long enough to show the conneciton between mdma and parkinsonism.

it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to show you the CONCLUSIVE study that mdma leads to parkinsonism.

but, here's the crux of the argument, where i think i lose you and where i think you should follow:

it is hard to prove a negative. just look at the un running around iraq looking for nuclear stockpiles. it is hard to prove a negative. and easy to prove a positive.

you are trying to prove a negative. you are saying mdma use does not necessarily lead to parkinsonism. i am trying to prove a positive. i am asserting there is a connection. so let me make my point:

what is parkinsonism? it is the cumulative loss of dopamine receptors over the human life time. given a long enough life, we would all get parkinsons, as all of our dopamine receptors decay and die. some of us would get it at 60, some at age 80, some at 100, some at 120, etc.

so what are we doing with mdma use? we are creating a giant experiment. we are accelerating the death of dopamine receptors in young healthy people. the parkinson's effect of that experiment won't show up until 2020 or 2030 when the extent of the parkinson's epidemic is fully known.

so here's my positive, my logical point: somewhere, right now, is a teenager or a 20-something popping the ecstacy pill that will put them over the threshold that will mean they get parkinsons. prove me wrong!

now the question becomes: how many e users will get parkinson's in their lifetime because of their e use? 10 of them? 1000? 10,000? 100,000?

the question is not whether or not i am right, the question is statistics: how right am i?

there will be a parkinson's epidemic, mark my words. and i am not spreading fud. fud is saying "don't take your boat across the atlantic, you'll hit an iceberg, be very afraid of icebergs!"

what i am saying is not fud, it is common sense: i am in the boat, i see the iceberg ahead, and i know we will hit it. and so we should be afraid. not fear, uncertainty and doubt for no reason. fear, certainty, reason. in the boat, moving forward, iceberg in front. taking e, killing dopamine receptors, bringing on parkinson's.

so for you, synaesthesia, i say, "iceberg, dead ahead!" let us see if you get in the liferaft, or grab a nice cold drink. ;-P

you prove your negative, you take your impossible stance. i have proven my positive. i have reason on my side, you don't. fud? you have the mirror image of fud. if fud is anxiety for no reason, then you have false security when you should be anxious. a tree is falling on you and you look up at it and say to yourself "trees don't hurt me." just as clueless, just as dangerous, just as false as fud.

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#229)
by synaesthesia on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 01:35:03 PM EST

there is no study, anywhere, that shows that parkinsonism results from mdma use.

 why? because such a study is IMPOSSIBLE.

Oh, really? Well, here's a starting point:

  1. Record levels of dopamine receptors in subject's brain.
  2. Give subject one reasonable oral dose of MDMA
  3. Record levels of dopamine receptors in subject's brain.
  4. Wait a month.
  5. Record levels of dopamine receptors in subject's brain.
  6. Give subject more MDMA
  7. Record levels of dopamine receptors in subject's brain.
  8. Wait a month
  9. Record levels of dopamine receptors in subject's brain.
...etc. Note that nowhere am I injecting MDMA at near-fatal levels cumulatively over a six-hour period.

Are you really not getting it yet?

when did we start using mdma?

the 1980s! no one has lived long enough to show the conneciton between mdma and parkinsonism.

Well, I think you can show the connection between MDMA and parkinsonism if you can show the connection between MDMA and loss of dopamine receptors, and the connection between loss of dopamine receptors and parkinsonism. So far you have shown the connection between massive intravenous injection of MDMA into monkeys, and loss of dopamine receptors. I keep asking you for the study which shows the connection between occasional, low-dosage, oral MDMA use in humans and loss of dopamine receptors, and you keep failing to provide it.

it is hard to prove a negative. just look at the un running around iraq looking for nuclear stockpiles. it is hard to prove a negative. and easy to prove a positive.

It's interesting that you use this as an analogy, because I don't see any proof positive in the case of Iraq's nuclear stockpiles. I see a bunch of people claiming proof, but they're trying to claim it negatively (Iraq didn't let us use spy planes, Iraq didn't declare the chemicals we sold them last decade, etc). To be honest I don't know the truth of the matter either way, and those who might have access to the truth are are disseminating information based on political posturing. So it is with drugs! Look at why hemp was criminalised.

Merck Industries first synthesised MDMA way back at the start of the twentieth century, but only patented it as a precursor to another chemical, so they seem not to have realised its psychoactive effects. Shulgin rediscovered it many years later, after which it became popular as a recreational drug. But by this time the patent had elapsed and therefore no-one stood to make any real money from selling it. You can be sure that if MDMA were discovered now, it would have received extensive testing and we wouldn't need to be having this conversation because the detrimental effects of various dosages would be known. But as things stand, we have a study by Ricuarte which really proves nothing other than if you seriously abuse MDMA it damages dopamine receptors.

what is parkinsonism? it is the cumulative loss of dopamine receptors over the human life time.

No. Parkinsonism is a syndrome which results from dopamine deficiency. One route to dopamine deficiency is not having enough dopamine receptors. One way of addressing this is to administer L-DOPA so that whatever dopamine receptors remain receive enough stimulation. So you might have thought that MDMA relieves Parkinsonism by stimulating dopamine, but it doesn't: obviously there is more to this than we understand. So don't try to dress it up as black and white. Even Ricuarte was cautious of drawing definite conclusions from his work.

You make believe with numbers:

make believe everyone has 1000 dopamine receptors when they are born. and parkinson's symptoms appear when you only have 500 dopamine receptors left.

depending upon who you are, every ecstacy pill you take represents the loss of 1 receptor. for others, it might represent 2 receptors, or 5 receptors, or 10.

But you really have no idea. Nor do I, so shall I make up my own set of numbers?

Let's say you have a million dopamine receptors to start with, and you need to stay above half a million to avoid parkinsonism. Every time you take a normal oral dose, you lose one receptor, or two, 5, or 10. If you don't wait long enough between doses, you lose more receptors the next time you take it. For some people, you have to wait a week, for some a day, some a month.

Every time you inject MDMA at near-fatal doses, you lose two hundred thousand receptors.

Before long you've got Parkinson's. So what have we proved here? We've proved that injecting MDMA in huge doses is a bad idea. We have singularly failed to prove that if I take a dose of Ecstasy once a year for my whole life that I will have Parkinson's before I know it.

Of course my numbers are as full of shit as yours are. But the point I'm trying to make is that you are drawing conclusions that are unscientific. And for this I maintain, you lack reasoning skills.

Even Ricuarte warned against drawing too many conclusions from his work. But you seem to be treating it as a guarantee that everyone who takes Ecstasy in moderation will end up with shaking hands. You have taken a single study, twisted it, extrapolated it, and become fearful of the uncertainty and doubt within.


Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

amazing! you agree with me, but can't conclude (none / 0) (#236)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 03:14:18 PM EST

But you really have no idea. Nor do I, so shall I make up my own set of numbers?

Let's say you have a million dopamine receptors to start with, and you need to stay above half a million to avoid parkinsonism. Every time you take a normal oral dose, you lose one receptor, or two, 5, or 10. If you don't wait long enough between doses, you lose more receptors the next time you take it. For some people, you have to wait a week, for some a day, some a month.

amazing! you agree with me, but you don't see the value in my conclusion. you happily continue in life with your false self-security on the issue, knowing nothing of the unknown that will strike us in 2020-2030 when the first crop of recreational mdma users hit the parkinson's age zone.

within that unknown are our two reactions: you say, who knows, so don't worry about it. i say, who knows, so worry about it.

so who is more irresponsible here? me for alarmist fud? or you for false security in the face of impending disaster?

Even Ricuarte warned against drawing too many conclusions from his work. But you seem to be treating it as a guarantee that everyone who takes Ecstasy in moderation will end up with shaking hands. You have taken a single study, twisted it, extrapolated it, and become fearful of the uncertainty and doubt within.

i have consistenty said, in all of my posts, that the number is extremely variable. show me my post where i say otherwise. and please stop insulting my reasoning skills. my points are valid and clear.

and i would wager my reaction is more responsible than yours. what amount of parkinson's sufferers in the future because of mdma use is acceptable to your conscience? 500,000 out of millions of recreational users? 50,000 out of millions of recreational users? 5,000 out of millions of recreational users? 500?

at what number is your conscience salved and you wipe clean your guilt in happily promoting and being comfortable with continued mdma use?

you have AGREED WITH ME that SOME NUMBER will be affected!

you have basically said i am right, and you quibble with me to what degree i am right!

and out there lies a great unknown- no wait, i'm sorry, a great CERTAINTY that you AGREE TO. the only unknown is the DEGREE of the disaster. and you accuse me of fud on the issue.

and i say to you that your false security on the unknown is far more dangerous than my whistle blower approach.

you are like a tobacco executive testifying before congress that nicotine isn't addictive. your know-nothing living-in-denial ignorant bliss is amazing! do you have a conscience? how do you sleep at night promoting mdma use with what is looming ahead of us???

and in truth, the proper approach lies in between your clueless bliss and my alarmism. but my alarmism leads me with a cleaner conscience than your continued bliss in the light of future parkinson's victims you have ALREADY ACQUIESCED TOO.

i will have a better time with my conscience in 20-30 years than you will with yours. the only question that remains is to what degree you will have regret with your irresponsible words today. any degree of complicity on your part to mdma use today is equivalent to the regret you will feel tomorrow.

if only 500 get parkinson's out of millions, and you sit back in gloating pride at your false security, know that just 1 out of those 500 who get parkinson's is blood on your hands, if it was because of your views they assumed your false security. or even if none of them who got parkinson's can be traced to your reassurances as to mdma's harmlessness and condoning of it's use, then know that their false security that led to their getting a horrible uncurable disease is because of a dangeorus cavalier attitude towards life that is equivalent towards your own. playing dice with fate.

blood on your hands. too much blood for me. apparently, good enough amount of blood for your idea of what responsiblity and having a conscience means.

grow a conscience and admit your bliss is false. or continue living in bliss, denying my warnings, and know where your pride and ego fail YOUR reasoning skills.

out there is a CERTAINTY of parkinson's from mdma use that YOU HAVE ADMITTED TOO. the ONLY unknown in the equation is TO WHAT DEGREE I AM RIGHT.

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Risks (none / 0) (#238)
by synaesthesia on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 03:24:50 PM EST

you have AGREED WITH ME that SOME NUMBER will be affected!

Show me where I have agreed with you on this. Link to the post, and quote the material to which you refer.

Would you agree with me that using road transport increases your chances of ending up with paraplegia? Would you still recommend using road transport? I hope you can live with the blood on your hands.


Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

good gawd (none / 0) (#241)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 03:40:21 PM EST

you have AGREED WITH ME that SOME NUMBER will be affected!

Show me where I have agreed with you on this. Link to the post, and quote the material to which you refer.

Let's say you have a million dopamine receptors to start with, and you need to stay above half a million to avoid parkinsonism. Every time you take a normal oral dose, you lose one receptor, or two, 5, or 10. If you don't wait long enough between doses, you lose more receptors the next time you take it. For some people, you have to wait a week, for some a day, some a month.

Would you agree with me that using road transport increases your chances of ending up with paraplegia? Would you still recommend using road transport? I hope you can live with the blood on your hands.

the risk levels are acceptable. we understand them well. mdma use we know kills dopamine receptors. we don't know if the risk level is small like driving in a car, or large. what risk level is acceptable to you? or more importantly, you know there is a risk, but you don't know the level, but you blindly move forward in your false sense of security?

logic.

flaw found.

rethink.
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

No... (none / 0) (#244)
by synaesthesia on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 03:57:18 PM EST

...I asked for the bit where I agreed with you. Not the bit where I stated that I was going to make up some numbers, made some numbers up, and then re-stated that they were made up.

mdma use we know kills dopamine receptors

Show me the study, by which we 'know' that MDMA, taken occasionally, in small quantities, orally, by humans, kills dopamine receptors.

Show me the study! SHOW ME THE STUDY.

show... me... the... study...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Show me the study!
SHOW ME THE STUDY!

Oh, I forgot. There is no such study.

Show me the study!

p.s. Show me the study.

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

stuck in the feedback loop (none / 0) (#246)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 04:09:39 PM EST

loop

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]
Show Me The Study (none / 0) (#265)
by synaesthesia on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 11:57:43 PM EST



Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]
i can't (none / 0) (#285)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 01:15:15 AM EST

to paraphrase the loop you fail to see us being stuck in, for whatever reason:

i can't show you the study

no one can

no one can show you the study supporting me, or supporting you

why?

no one has used mdma for more than 20 years! cocaine, heroin, marijuana: these drugs have been used for centuries. we understand their longterm effects well.

in 2030, they can

right now, no one can

we are left with logic

mdma kills dopamine receptors

dopamine receptor death leads to parkinsons

therefore, mdma will cause parkinson's

how much?

no one knows, we will see.

in the meantime, your blissful ignorance is of a level of irresponsiblity far greater than my alarmism.

we need a whistleblower on this.

i am blowing the whistle.

you are the tobacco executive saying to congress "nicotine really isn't addictive"

look at yourself: self-serving false sense of security: that is you.

look at me, my alarmism, does it bother you?

fine.

but your own falsehood should bother you more if you had a conscience.
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

You're not trolling, are you? (none / 0) (#287)
by synaesthesia on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 05:48:21 AM EST

You really are that stupid!

I'm not looking for the study that says MDMA usage will cause parkinsonism.

I'm looking for the study that says MDMA, taken in small amounts, occasionally, orally, in humans, kills dopamine receptors.

Nothing about long-term consequences. Just that it kills dopamine receptors. Show me that study!

Just to spell it out for you: a study that says MDMA injected into monkeys at near-fatal doses over a six-hour period kills dopamine receptors won't suffice.

Cigarettes are likely to shorten your life, but you're unlikely to die from nicotine poisoning. And yet if you take the amount of nicotine in a packet of cigarettes intravenously, it'll probably kill you.

Because you tend to get easily sidetracked, I'll put it here in bold again: Show me the study which says that MDMA, taken occasionally, in small amounts, orally, in humans, kills dopamine receptors. Or, explain to me why that study can't possibly exist.

After you show me that study, we can go on to try to determine whether the proportion of dopamine receptors killed makes parkinsonism a risk.


Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

good gawd (none / 0) (#294)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 02:05:12 PM EST

you win

i'm just a troll

i do not have anything positive to add to the debate, you have nothing to learn from me, you do not need to appreciate my pov

i am crackpot troll spreading fud for no reason

my alarmism over dopamine receptors and mdma use is irresponsible

while your false sense of security over the issue is responsible

happy now?

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Didn't think so. (none / 0) (#301)
by synaesthesia on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 05:19:11 PM EST

There's only so long you can pretend not to have understood the question, after which you have to resort to sarcasm as a diversionary tactic to try to hide the fact that you can't show me the study and therefore you don't have a point.

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]
no i can't show the study (none / 0) (#306)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 02:09:17 PM EST

no i can't show the study

no one can

no on ehas lived long enough!

doesn't it mean ANYTHING to you that we only have 20 years experience with mdma compared to thousands of years with other drugs??!! doesn't that mean ANYTHING to you???

jeez

you just don't get it

tread carefully, do not embrace idiotically, something like mdma

your approach is dangerous

my approach is safer
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Explain to me (again)... (none / 0) (#307)
by synaesthesia on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 02:20:34 PM EST

...why no-one can show me a study which demonstrates that MDMA, taken in small amounts, occasionally, orally, in humans, kills dopamine receptors?

Not, "kills enough dopamine receptors over your lifetime to give you parkinsonism". Just, "kills dopamine receptors".

Thanks!

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

on and on and on (none / 0) (#308)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 04:18:12 PM EST

here, this is from a pro-mdma site

it has to with serotonin receptors, not dopamine receptors

i am NOT changing the subject. i am merely pointing out that if a pro-mdma sight can elicit such care with the UNKNOWN why CAN'T YOU???

Not even heroic doses of MDMA are likely to kill off serotonergic brain cells, though there have been unconfirmed reports of MDMA-induced apoptosis in mega-dosed rats. Only the most alarmist commentators anticipate a delayed epidemic of demented depressives as a result of serotonergic carnage caused by MDMA abuse. But equally, no alien anthropologist in his right mind who merely read the gruesome scientific literature on MDMA would want to self-experiment with such a deadly neurotoxin. Taking weed killer, glue sniffing or swallowing rat poison sounds marginally less dangerous. Calling it dystopian pharmacology might seem more apposite. Even listening to glowing, first-person accounts of the MDMA experience is curiously uninspiring when refracted through the lens of normal Darwinian consciousness. The prospect of love, peace and empathy seems less exciting than a round of Quake 3. We are all prone to mood-congruent thoughts.

        In any case, MDMA users themselves may find the magic of the initial drug-induced epiphany tends to fade with frequent use. For many but not all users, a magical drug becomes just a feel-good drug. Adverse side-effects tend to become more troublesome. Higher doses are needed to gain the same effect. Users lament that "the E isn't as pure as it used to be"; and that the tablets are weaker. Often indeed this is true; but a physiological explanation for so-called "cumulative tolerance" must be sought as well. Enzyme-induction plays a role, though the phenomenon isn't fully understood. Pharmacodynamic tolerance to a drug is normally reversible, yet some users of MDMA report they never quite recapture the initial ecstatic glory even if they abstain for a year or more. Researchers are still unsure if this fade-off is a symptom of long-term neuroadaptation or serotonergic damage.

again, for the 1000x time: i CAN POINT TO NO STUDY TO PROVE ME RIGHT

but: YOU CAN NOT POINT TO A STUDY THAT PROVES ME WRONG.

logic, occams' razor, point to this: it is harder to prove your positive than my negative. all we have is hints from ricuarte- and don't those hints alarm you? don't they point to the need for care in your mind? why do you insist on burying care and concern and alarm with false bliss and false self-security? why do you insist that your approach to mdma use is more coherent, more responsible, more thoughtful than my approach?

what does it mean to you that we have only 20 years experience with mdma and THOUSANDS of years with other drugs? doesn't that alarm you? when monsanto sprays a field with an untried pesticide, doesn't it bother you that we don't know about the long term effects? doesn't it bother you that you should not mess around with the brain with such an UNKNOWN chemical?

if you showed a dupont scientist in 1940 that DDT use hints at weakening eagle eggs and might drive raptors like the bald eagle to extinction, he would scoff at me FROM THE SAME MENTALITY that YOU scoff at me now! HE WOULD DRIVE THE SAME ARGUMENTS AGINST MY ALARMISM THAT YOU DO NOW! HE WOULD SHOUT MORE STUDIES MORE STUDIES! SHOW ME THE STUDY! SHOW ME THE STUDY!

doesn't CARE and CONCERN mean more to you than FALSE bliss on a chemical WITH SUCH GIANT UNKNOWNS???????????????

20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IS ALL WE HAVE

we have THOUSANDS of years of experience with other drugs

MY CARE AND ALARM IS MORE RESPONSIBLE THAN YOUR BLISS AND FALSE SECURITY

WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT???????????

i am not afraid of the unknown. if mankind did not explore the unknown, we would get no where. all of our greatest discoveries would be naught. but there is a big difference between running and jumping into it and carefully approaching it.

i repeat, there is a big difference between running and jumping into the unknown and carefully approaching it.

that is the difference between you and i.

know thyself: you are irresponsible.

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

No, we've broken new ground (none / 0) (#312)
by synaesthesia on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 05:09:53 AM EST

I never said that Ecstasy was harmless. You need to learn to read.

You have spent this entire discussion stating the following as fact:

mdma kills dopamine receptors
dopamine receptor death leads to parkinsons
therefore, mdma will cause parkinson's

I have continually asked you to provide a basis for stating this as fact, and finally, on this historic day, you have admitted that you have none.

Thanks for playing.


Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

on yonder high (none / 0) (#313)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 01:30:41 PM EST

loop

dude, i linked from the very first post in this whole repetitive thread

we have been over this issue again and again and again

we are dealing with unknowns

we are dealing with attitudes

you have more faith in the untested dangers

you are more irresponsible

but you know what? to you i am an evil troll, i don't see you budging on this, so just leave it at that, ok? i am a vile, monstrous fud spreading troll, and i have no value or insight which is of any value to you, ok?

so you go with that ;-)

your stubbornness is exemplary

well, i guess mine is too lol ;-P

xoxoxoxoxoxoxox

peace out false bliss!

i will forget about you, but you may remember me in 25 years while reading the newspaper

"hmmm... what's this about parkinson's?"

time is on my side, not yours

time will expose mdma's dangers

for some reason, you think false bliss on the issue is superior to my alarmism

I never said that Ecstasy was harmless. You need to learn to read.

yes, but you stand in opposition to my alarmism. that makes you more irresponsible than me. and why you have debated me this long is beyond belief. just say 1 or 2:

  1. "you are dumb evil troll, i will never listen to you"
  2. "ok, mdma is more dangerous than i think it is"
unless you have been arguing with me out of sheer trollish joy on your part, i have no other reason but to assume you think mdma is less dangerous than i do

just go with the flow man. mdma has a link to parkinson's. why it has become your personal crusade to prove me wrong on this point is confusing. there is a link. it was hinted at by ricuarte. it's extent is unknown. why must you continue to attempt to suppress my alarmism over this point?
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Either you are deaf or stupid (none / 0) (#314)
by synaesthesia on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 02:58:24 PM EST

mdma has a link to parkinson's

Yes, and alcohol has a link to death by polyneuropathy, cardiomyopathy, gastritis, fatty liver, acute alcoholic hepatitis, cirrhosis of the liver, pulmonary and other respiratory tuberculosis, malignant neoplasm of lip, oral cavity, pharynx, esophagus, stomach, liver, intrahepatic bile ducts and larynx, diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, pneumonia and influenza, diseases of esophagus, stomach and duodenum, biliary cirrhosis, and acute pancreatitis, amongst other things.

Yet how do you and I avoid dying? By drinking alcohol in moderation. Essentially your argument rests on there being no 'moderate' level of Ecstasy use. And where do you get this idea? From a study which says that if you inject near-fatal doses into monkeys over a short period, you see damage to dopamine receptors.

Let me ask you a simple question.

Do you, or do you not understand the difference between:

  1. Injecting MDMA in near-fatal doses over a six-hour period.
  2. Administering MDMA in small doses, orally, once a year.
If you don't understand the difference, I suggest you consider the difference between:
  1. Injecting a near-fatal dose of ethanol.
  2. Having a glass of wine.
just say 1 or 2:

 "you are dumb evil troll, i will never listen to you"
 "ok, mdma is more dangerous than i think it is"

Neither of these is true, so why should I say either? I don't believe you're a troll, I just think you lack basic reasoning skills. I am listening to you, but you're not listening to me. Your argument is this:

  1. There has been a study which shows that MDMA abuse kills dopamine receptors.
  2. Dopamine receptor loss can cause parkinsonism.
  3. Therefore, anyone who uses MDMA puts themselves at risk of parkinsonism.
Can you not see what's wrong with that logic? I'll tell you AGAIN: it has to do with the difference between the words 'use' and 'abuse'.

Here's a thought: why don't you give me an example of something which you think is safe? Anything: water, air, paper, marijuana, clothes, exercise; whatever you like, and I'll give you an example of how it can be fatal.

As for "mdma is more dangerous than i think it is", how dangerous do you think I think it is? I don't think it's safe to inject it at near-fatal doses over a six-hour period, and I have good reason for believing that. I do think it's pretty safe (compared with every other danger in my life) to take one dose, once a year. You disagree, but you can't tell me why you disagree, other than saying, "MDMA has a link to Parkinson's", which is certainly no more true than saying, "alcohol has a link to acute liver failure".

Now you're going to come back to me and say, "Yes, but alcohol has been around for thousands of years wheras MDMA has only been around for twenty". So what? We're not talking about long-term effects here, we're still talking about dopamine receptors and why you feel that taking Ecstasy in moderation kills them (the Ricuarte study does not give us any answers to that question).

So please understand that when you say, "dude, i linked from the very first post in this whole repetitive thread" you are not answering the question, you are merely repeating something equivalent to a study that says injecting ethanol is bad for you, and telling me that I shouldn't have a glass of wine on that basis.


Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

That's it (5.00 / 1) (#315)
by Dephex Twin on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 04:18:34 PM EST

Hitler and the nazis cause the destruction of dopamine receptors and are responsible for the production of ecstacy today. Thread over.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
we are page widening trolls (none / 0) (#316)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 04:52:45 PM EST

you realize, at this point, the rest of kuro5hin regards us as some sort of slashdot-reminescent page-widening trolls, don't you?

i mean, just look at our thread, it's ridiculous

it's a giant testament to our stubbornness

we are both WAY out on a limb here

how about we agree to disagree? how is that? neither of us is hardly budging. you don't respect my position. i don't respect yours. i think you are irresponsible. you think i lack reasoning skills. fine. whatever. we disagree and we disrespect each other. at this point, i can LIVE WITH THAT. lol ;-P

Now you're going to come back to me and say, "Yes, but alcohol has been around for thousands of years wheras MDMA has only been around for twenty". So what? We're not talking about long-term effects here...

uh... what?

we ARE talking about long-term effects... how the heck did we suddenly not talk about long-term effects? that is ALL i have ever been talking about. when did i say these parkinson's dopamine effects would be immediate? and NO ONE has lived long enough to reveal those long term effects! that's the issue here.

if i told you in 1940 that ddt would lead to eagle deaths, you would be yelling "show me the study! show me the study!" i couldn't then. i can now. in 2030, how about i get back to you on the studies you want, ok?

UNKNOWNS dude, UNKNOWNS. you adhere to this rigid show me the study mindset when NO ONE CAN SHOW YOU A DAMN STUDY. we are talking about FAITH. and my careful alarmist regard of the unknown on mdma use is FAR MORE RESPONSIBLE than your blind faith in "everything will work itself out."

dude, i am not of the "you don't get a free lunch" crowd. it is entirely possible to heighten peace and enlightment and awareness through pharmacology. the search for the perfect drug will go on.

but one thing is clear. mdma ain't it. it's revealing itself- i think, to be more dangerous than other drugs we have had thousands of years of experience with. you keep discounting this experience. you keep insisting only 20 years experience is good enough. why is that? where does your false, irresponsible bliss on the question of mdma's safety come from? it really does matter that we only have 20 years experience with mdma! why can't you see that?!

...we're still talking about dopamine receptors and why you feel that taking Ecstasy in moderation kills them (the Ricuarte study does not give us any answers to that question).

yes, but the ricuarte study hints at something that SHOULD cause you to have alarm on the issue. you say to me: why do you extrapolate such alarmism from ricuarte? i say to you: why do you discount ricuarte out of hand? UNKNOWNS dude. UNKNOWNS. it is EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT that WE ONLY HAVE 20 YEARS EXPERIENCE WITH MDMA.

if this were an argument about the use of new agribusiness pesticides and their effect on the environment and consumer health, i think you would be on my side. but for some reason, i think you are emotionally invested in mdma use and need to justify your faulty position, i think that is where all of your desire to argue with me on my NATURAL PRUDENT RESPONSIBLE alarmism comes from.

answer me this question: why is the organic food business booming? surely, consumers just are operating on fud about agribusiness pesticide chemicals, right? if they knew the science, then they would realize the risks to them are so imperceptibly low, that they would stop paying all that extra money for organic, right? so are you going to tell them they are morons for buying organic, right? "show me the study!" you will say, to anyone who chooses organic over mainstream agribusiness chemically treated foods.

i mean clearly, organic produce buyers are idiots! right? clearly, you have to inject monkeys with 2,000,000 times the dose of these chemicals to see ANY effect that these agrichemicals would have, right?

oh but wait! look at ddt. in 1940 the scientist would say to you: "you moron, stop worrying about ddt! it will have no effect on eagle egg formation as much higher doses are needed!" oh... but science was not complete in 1940... they didn't know then what we know now... that ddt gets concentrated in fats... and as you move up the food chain, it gets even more and more concentrated. porpoises in the st. lawrence still have sky high levels of ddt and pcbs in them decades after ddt had been used in large quantities. general electric stopped dumping pcbs in the hudson river decades ago, but the fish are still to this day poisonous to eat.

"you dummies" you shout "you can eat 10 pounds of hudson river fish and have only a tiny tiny chance of getting cancer!"

oh really?

you have a fish then.

not hungry all of a sudden?

see where my need for care, concern, alarm over mdma comes from?

what does pcbs and ddt teach us? take CARE, take ALARM.. we don't know everything!

what tells you that we know enough about brain chemistry in 2003 to know that mdma use is essentially harmless? what tells you that? in the year 2103, they will look at our knowledge of brain chemistry in 2003 like we were living in the stone age. and you think "show me the study!" is enough to go on when asking whether or not mdma use is ok? a chemcial we have so little experience with?

you have FALSE SELF-CERTAINTY. HUBRIS. YOU THINK WAY TO HIGHLY OF YOUR ABILITY TO REASON INTO THE UNKNOWN.

tell me: how do we stop alzheimer's? how do we cure muscular dystrophy.

tell me, how do prions work- mad cow disease. tell me all we know about how these proteins act like viruses in the brain. do you know? does anyone?

fronteirs of science dude. we know very little aboutt he brain. you tell me with certainty mdma use will have no long term effects. you tell me there isn't some toxic long term effects from its use. you tell me alarmism over ricuarte is irresponsible.

you entirely miss the point, organic food use? it's about human bodies dude. OUR BODIES. will you eat hudson river fish? "but the threat is so low!" really? our bodies, our brains are very precious commodities. people deserve to extrapolate caution and alarmism over strange new and novel chemicals and worry about putting them in their bodies. that is what mdma is: strange and new.

if you understand my point about agrichemicals, you understand my point about mdma entirely.

So please understand that when you say, "dude, i linked from the very first post in this whole repetitive thread" you are not answering the question, you are merely repeating something equivalent to a study that says injecting ethanol is bad for you, and telling me that I shouldn't have a glass of wine on that basis.

i say to you this: injecting high dose mdma is bad for you, and i am telling you that you shouldn't take low dose pills of mdma on that basis.

i REPEAT: injecting high dose mdma is bad for you, and i am telling you that you shouldn't take low dose pills of mdma on that basis!

EXACTLY THAT! YES! YOU UNDERSTAND ME!

i am telling you exactly that.

get it?

see where we differ?

your alcohol example is stupid. our level of experience with ethanol predates the written word. and you are going to extrapolate a lack of reasoning skills on my part because i am not willing to understand how your ethanol example applies to mdma use?

my lack of reasoning skills?

it's less a quesiton of science and studies, and more a question of faith between us, that is the crux of the matter.

and it is not a matter of you being a brave adventurer and me being a meek coward. we are dealing with longterm brain chemistry effects neither you nor i can speak of with certainty on.

it is more like we know there is a cave bear in the cave somwhere, and i want to wait until we have a flashlight, and you say "screw the bear, it's unlikely we'll run into it" and you walk into the cave with bliss and false self-certainty.

my care and alarmism is far more responsible than your approach.

it is a question of faith.

and you have bad faith.

your faith is more like "russian roulette? 1 in 6 chance? sure! why not! how much $ are we playing for, gimme the gun!"

know thyself: you are irresponsible.
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Luckily (none / 0) (#317)
by synaesthesia on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 06:46:21 PM EST

Luckily, kuro5hin is carefully-enough crafted that we're not causing any problems with our page-widening thread.

I too think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Perhaps you can look at it this way: it's a good thing for people like you that there are people like me, who are prepared to put themselves at risk to find out the answers to the long-term questions.

Let me address just a few of your points:

we ARE talking about long-term effects... how the heck did we suddenly not talk about long-term effects? that is ALL i have ever been talking about. when did i say these parkinson's dopamine effects would be immediate?

You said it from the start. You don't have a direct correlation between MDMA usage and parkinsonism, so you state as fact that MDMA use kills dopamine receptors. That's an immediate effect. But you don't have a study which says that MDMA use kills dopamine receptors, merely one which says that MDMA abuse kills dopamine receptors. That's what I've been trying to point out all along.

i say to you this: injecting high dose mdma is bad for you, and i am telling you that you shouldn't take low dose pills of mdma on that basis.

Right, now we're getting somewhere. This is the first time you've made this explicit, and making yourself explicit is helpful (more helpful than simply stating "mdma kills dopamine receptors, which part of that do you not understand?" over and over again). This actually gives us something to agree to disagree over, because I'm prepared to take the risk.

The risk is not unimportant, but I don't really see why you've latched onto this particular risk. I'll have another go at putting it in perspective. Do you drive a car? There are certain precautions you can take to minimise the risks associated with being in a moving vehicle. Wear your seatbelt, observe speed limits, follow the highway code, drive defensively, etc. But you still run the risk of some crackpot driver slamming into you at high speed through no fault of your own. Yet you still decide that driving is worth it.

you tell me with certainty mdma use will have no long term effects.

Once again you are falsely putting words in my mouth. If you have spent the whole thread arguing against this straw man, no wonder you have been so vociferous!

your alcohol example is stupid.

You think so because you haven't understood it. It's about the short term. A key stage in your argument that MDMA usage leads to parkinsonism is that it kills dopamine receptors. This is not a long-term effect, otherwise Ricuarte wouldn't have been able to demonstrate it at high doses. At low doses, there is no indication that MDMA kills dopamine receptors. Your position is that low-dosage MDMA use will cumulatively lead to the sorts of dopamine receptor death that high doses lead to in the short term. You have no reason to believe this, because we have many, many counterexamples of chemicals that humans can imbibe at small doses with no ill-effect, that are lethal at high doses. Alcohol is one of these. Do you get it yet?

my lack of reasoning skills?

See the previous paragraph.

it is more like we know there is a cave bear in the cave somwhere, and i want to wait until we have a flashlight, and you say "screw the bear, it's unlikely we'll run into it" and you walk into the cave with bliss and false self-certainty.

Can you tell me which part of the discussion translates to "we know there is a cave bear in the cave somewhere"? Because that is exactly what we are arguing over.

your faith is more like "russian roulette? 1 in 6 chance? sure! why not! how much $ are we playing for, gimme the gun!"

Please explain. Are you now trying to claim that there is a definite probabilistic formula we can now apply to the whole MDMA/parkinson's thing? Because if so, I'd love to hear how "1 in 6" translates.

Let me rewind a bit:

oh but wait! look at ddt. in 1940 the scientist would say to you: "you moron, stop worrying about ddt! it will have no effect on eagle egg formation as much higher doses are needed!" oh... but science was not complete in 1940... they didn't know then what we know now... that ddt gets concentrated in fats... and as you move up the food chain, it gets even more and more concentrated. porpoises in the st. lawrence still have sky high levels of ddt and pcbs in them decades after ddt had been used in large quantities. general electric stopped dumping pcbs in the hudson river decades ago, but the fish are still to this day poisonous to eat.

So, you appear to be claiming one of the following:

  1. That MDMA use is bad because it accumulates within the closed system of the food chain, thereby exposing all living creatures to dopamine receptor damage.
  2. That we shouldn't ever do anything new, in case it has unforeseen consequences.
I assume it's the latter, but I still don't think it's warranted.

if you understand my point about agrichemicals, you understand my point about mdma entirely.

No. Your point about agrochemicals rests on the being a closed system in which a cumulative effect takes place (see above).

it's less a quesiton of science and studies, and more a question of faith between us, that is the crux of the matter.

Perhaps, and perhaps this is why we'll probably agree to differ.

and it is not a matter of you being a brave adventurer and me being a meek coward. we are dealing with longterm brain chemistry effects neither you nor i can speak of with certainty on.

It's not about me being brave, it's about me making a risk vs. benefit tradeoff. I choose to take risks, and the risks I take are based on the evidence out there. So you won't find me injecting near-fatal doses of MDMA over a six-hour period. But you will find me driving a car, and I think you'd find yourself doing the same, despite that there is real evidence you expose yourself to risk of death, but you wouldn't take MDMA, despite that there is no evidence you expose yourself to risk of dopamine receptor death if you take it in moderation. You've agreed with me on this. So where does your 'faith' actually come from?

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

actually (none / 0) (#318)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 09:12:30 PM EST

actually, about cars, i live and work in midtown manhattan, times square. i grew up on a rural farm, and used to drive hours everywhere, now i don't have a car at all and walk everywhere. and love it.

take that as evidence of my risk-aversion. lol

honestly, i still think that your car and alcohol anologies are flawed, because we understand these examples excellently.

and you miss the point of my pcb/ ddt/ agriculture anology: not that i think mdma accumulates over time in the brain/ environment/ etc., which is goofy thinking, but that in 1940 telling a scientist how ddt would concentrate itself in the food chain and weaken raptor eggs would be answered with a "huh?"

my deeper point is that mdma use is full of too many UNKNOWNS. and studies like ricuarte's give us hints into the unknown that should give most people pause and warning. you admit are taking a risk, so that is ok. but i hope it is not from hubris. because it is certain that it is not from informed scientific education on the issue. because there is no informed scientific education on the issue. you see, you have great faith in science- which you should have. but you ascertain all of that wonderful faith in to mdma, which sits on the intersection of science, theory, and the unknown.

like you said, it's your risk. but it's one thing to risk driving a car, where all of the outcomes and dangers can be well understood and calculated with physics and statistics, and mdma use, which is something like ddt use and raptor eggs: who would have thought of it?

and that is what worries me about your position, it's not careful, there is no room for or recognition of: "who would have ever thought of that in 2003!? so who can blame all of those mdma users? if only they knew then what we know now..."

but you know what? it's been good debating with you, because, while we did flamefest for quite a bit, in the end we've been quite civilized about it all, especially after revealing a giant rift in our approaches, that is impressive.

cheers to you synaesthesia, i respect your sticking to your guns and your convictions. well met, i say. ;-)
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Parkinson's (none / 0) (#198)
by spiralx on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 04:43:24 PM EST

I'll refer you to this comment I made earlier... it's in complete oppoistion to what this clown thinks. Apparently ecstasy actually relieves the suffering of Parkinson's victims... who'd've thought it?

Please let me reassure those who are leaning towards foreskin envy that your balls will start smelling long before the head of your penis does, foreskin o
[ Parent ]

dangerous person (2.00 / 1) (#202)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 05:21:43 PM EST

like i said before, getting drunk relieves the symptoms of liver cirrhosis too.

you are downright dangerous.

dude, i am not a party pooper.

i am not like "hey kids, stop having fun with e... why? because i'm an uptight troll and i'm not having any fun so i'll decide to stop you guys from having fun! straighten up and get a boring desktop and goosestep and march to my fascist misery!"

or whatever it is you think of me.

that is what you think of me, fine. you refuse to see the reason in my argument because of your entrenched pov. you are blinded by your admitted extensive e use. you have a bad decision to support at the detriment of your pride and ego. i have used plenty of drugs. but not e. it scares me. i have no entrenched pov. i am not against recreational drug use. i am just against e because e didn't beat me up or give me wedgie. i am against e for REASONS. logic. medicine.

you on the other hand are a dangerous person. you have a bad decision to support, and you spread your pov to support your bad decision.
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

truedat (none / 0) (#185)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 01:47:06 PM EST

thc doesn't destroy dopamine receptors. ;-)
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]
Yes, I know that's all you can say. (none / 0) (#180)
by synaesthesia on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 12:38:49 PM EST

It just took me a while to realise it. IHBT. IHAND.

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]
what else do you need to know? (1.00 / 1) (#184)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 01:46:17 PM EST

mdma destroys dopamine receptors

what the hell else do you need to know?

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Your whole argument is flawed (2.66 / 3) (#232)
by phliar on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 02:36:48 PM EST

I don't take drugs (well except alcohol, and some ibuprofin) but I see no reason for people to fuck up their own brain.
One the other hand, alcohol's deleterious effects on your brain are well-known. Try not to be so sanctimonious -- make your decision about what drugs you want to take and let others do the same. We all draw the line in different places -- I don't do alcohol or nicotine, but there are other drugs (MDMA is among them) I will.

Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

sweet jeebus indeed (5.00 / 1) (#252)
by kableh on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 04:58:09 PM EST

pharmaceutical companies??!! can we drop the ideological posturing for once!!??
Can you listen for once? If MDMA was patentable, there would be an abundance of information on its effects, side effects, and long term damage.
i'm talking about PERMANENT DOPAMINE RECEPTOR DAMAGE
So was he! He was saying that taking a low dosage once a year isn't as bad as popping 10 pills every weekend, and that if it was contributing to death of dopamine receptors it would be minimal.
i am not fronting for glaxo welcome! i am not fronting for nancy reagan!
I didn't say you were, just that you were buying into the hype.
try some psilocybin once a year. try khat once a year. try salvia divinorum once a year. i'm all for it.
Great. Done and done. Weren't we talking about fun things that bring people together and help them empathize? Salvia hardly fits into that definition.
but stay away from the ecstacy man. ecstacy IS SCARY SHIT PERIOD.
Ya know what? I definately don't think kids should be using MDMA. I agree about telling them the dangers so that they will be scared to do it. I just think that in doing so, you have a responsibility to make sure that they know how to minimize the risks associated with its use.
permanent dopamine receptor damage? you want to play that game? you like parkinson's?
Alcohol abuse can result in cirrhosis of the liver. Having a glass of wine in the evening won't. There is a difference between use and abuse, agreed?

Same goes for MDMA. It is thought, and I say that because it hasn't been proved conclusively, that taking a higher dose of MDMA is responsible in large part for its neurotoxicity. It is also though that taking a "maintainance" dose - when the effects are wearing off, dosing again - is much more damaging to the brain.

Everything in moderation.
this is a cry for some reason!
And I'm asking you for the same! Come back to reality, where people use drugs. Too many people have died already because they weren't educated on minimizing risk. Do you want more blood on your hands?

[ Parent ]
the Ecstacy-Parkinson's (non-)Connection (4.00 / 4) (#101)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:00:17 PM EST

The 2002 study was flawed in many ways and just another attempt by somebody to setup a situation where they could point to ecstacy and "Look. Bad!" Read any of the critiques in the mainstream media to find out a full list of complains, but here are a few (remember this story say supposed connection went around years ago and was debunked then too, this is just another case of the same misinformation):

(1) The researchers used three large doses in small monkeys over a six hour period and they use IV injection, instead of a slower oral administration. Such high doses actually killed 20% of the test animals. That should be a warning that this study was seriously flawed, since people have a tremendously hard time overdosing on ecstacy.

(2) Ricaurte, who ran the study, had planned on giving the monkeys evey more ecstacy, showing that he was setting up an unwinnable situation. He was going keep slamming them with E until he got the results he wanted.

(3) They never did show that ecstacy killed any domaine transport neurons. They did show that you can kill a monkey with enough MDMA before brain damage sets in though and that dopamine levels can be reduced (but no even permanently). There are plenty of substance, even FDA approved, that will temporarily inhibit dopamine production.

(4) There is no previous body of work to back this up. Current literature and theory believe that MDMA causes a selective serotonergic reaction.

6 more responses from the scitific community.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]

science (3.00 / 3) (#108)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:28:08 PM EST

listen to me.

i am not arguing with you about the evils of the us government drug policy, or the evils of big pharma companies. i'm not here to tell you to stop having a good time, get a desk job, and shut up. i don't care about all of that ideological posturing. this is not about flawed studies, this is not my personal propaganda, this is about BASIC SCIENCE.

mdma, the chemical, permanently overloads and shuts down dopamine receptors in the basal ganglia. fact. the permanent damage that is done by ecstacy is not felt right now, but only later, when natural dopamine receptor loss reveals that previous ecstacy users have accelerated loss. where you might have gotten parkinsons naturally at 63, with regular use you might get it at 54, where there is someone who would have never gotten parkinson's naturally in their lifetime, with regular ecstacy use they might get it at age 72. do you see?

ecstacy use has only been going on since the 1980s. other drugs have been used for thousands of years. there is no one alive right now who has lived long enough to expose the damage and show no parkinson's and prove you right.

meanwhile, i have proof of receptor damage. and i have proof of how parkinson's disease is acquired. it is not very hard to see the connection and see the coming epdemic. are you so ready to defy my assertion that ecstacy use permanently destroys dopamine receptors? am i making that up? am i spreading fud and propaganda for no good reason?

i am not ideologically posturing. i am not shilling for the us government or big companies. this is not propaganda you are listening to. i am a recreational drug user. i am not a hypocrit.

LISTEN TO ME

i am telling you that 1990s and current ecstacy use will result in an epidemic of parkinson's disease in 30-40 years.

guaranteed.

wake up, or become a statistic.

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Go do more reading... (3.33 / 3) (#111)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:42:54 PM EST

mdma, the chemical, permanently overloads and shuts down dopamine receptors in the basal ganglia. fact.
MDMA is, as I mentioned in my last post, selective in reaction. It only wants to effect seratonin neurons. The domapine damage comes from dopamine being reuptake back into the seratonin neuron. There has never been any proof of a dopaminergenic effect, much less any proof of permanent neuron damage of any kind. The reasearch in the past has shone that neurons are very resilient and that receptors may contract from high actvity, but it will resurface.

_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
you're stuck, aren't you? (3.00 / 2) (#116)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:59:34 PM EST

you're stuck, aren't you? you are going to defend mdma use to your dying breath. you are married to it.

mdma permanetly damages dopamine receptors.

fact.

you won't get beyond that. you are hung up on that.

and you hang yourself and anyone you come in contact with with your certainty on the issue. your pride will doom you, and anyone who listens to you to early parkinsons.

mdma permanently damages dopamine receptors.

fact.

there is no rephrasing of this fact, there is no wiggling around it. you either admit to it, or get on with your bad self and your ego and your folly and your delusions of ecstacy's harmlessness.

i think michael j. fox felt immortal and omnipotent in his youth too. we all do. i wonder what he would make of your cavalier attitude about parkinson's and mdma. i think he has a good idea of what you are throwing away in your blind pride. because you sure don't.

you will think of me again, many years from now, when your hand begins to shake.

meanwhile, i am going to try to forget i ever met anyone like you.

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Er... (5.00 / 4) (#158)
by Control Group on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 10:32:22 PM EST

I don't agree with jjayson's original post, here, but he has specifically responded to the only evidence you've provided of your claim with linked research, and you've not made any effort to rebut that response aside from saying "fact" a lot.

I don't like ecstasy in theory, I've not used it, and if I someday have children, I'm sure I won't want them using it. Nonetheless, if you want to make a case that it permanently damages dopamine receptors, you'd be better off presenting more evidence than one article that jjayson has specifically responded to with 6. Sorry.

***
"Oh, nothing. It just looks like a simple Kung-Fu Swedish Rastafarian Helldemon."
[ Parent ]

geez (1.00 / 2) (#175)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 09:03:25 AM EST

mdma permanently destroys dopmine receptors

simple as that

how many times do i have to say that?

do you doubt that?

it does!

end of fucking story!

i don't know many links jjayson has assembled

who cares!

if you doubt me, go ahead and take some ecstacy

when your hand starts shaking years from now, think of me

what the hell is wrong with you people?

this is not a cold impassionate debate, this is not a rhetorical stretching exercise

this is pretty fucking basic and straightforward

wake the fuck up
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

So (5.00 / 2) (#188)
by Control Group on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 02:33:09 PM EST

Your idea of proving to me that ecstasy causes Parkinson's is to have me get Parkinson's? Granted, this would be proof - but it's no more legitimate than some fundamentalist saying I that if I masturbate, I'll go to Hell. I want proof? Well, masturbate and go to Hell, that'll prove it...

As arguments go, this isn't terrifically convincing.

***
"Oh, nothing. It just looks like a simple Kung-Fu Swedish Rastafarian Helldemon."
[ Parent ]

control group? (none / 0) (#199)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 05:02:58 PM EST

do you know how ironic your screen name is in this context? lol ;-P

follow my reasoning here and tell me where it fails. and then tell me if i am spreading fud, or just common sense.

there is no study, anywhere, that shows that parkinsonism results from mdma use.

why? because such a study is IMPOSSIBLE.

why? other drugs- morphine, cocaine, marijuana, etc., have been in use by thousands of human beings for millenia. their long term effects are well understood. think about the use of strange and new chemical pasticides in food crops and why that makes people nervous. no long term proof of harmlessness.

when did we start using mdma?

the 1980s! no one has lived long enough to show the conneciton between mdma and parkinsonism.

it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to show you the CONCLUSIVE study that mdma leads to parkinsonism.

but, here's the crux of the argument, where i think i lose you and where i think you should follow:

it is hard to prove a negative. just look at the un running around iraq looking for nuclear stockpiles. it is hard to prove a negative. and easy to prove a positive.

you are trying to prove a negative. you are saying mdma use does not necessarily lead to parkinsonism. i am trying to prove a positive. i am asserting there is a connection. so let me make my proof postive point:

what is parkinsonism? it is the cumulative loss of dopamine receptors over the human lifetime. given a long enough life, we would all get parkinsons, as all of our dopamine receptors decay and die. some of us would get it at age 60, some at age 80, some at 100, some at 120, etc.

so what are we doing with mdma use? we are creating a giant experiment. we are accelerating the death of dopamine receptors in young healthy people. the parkinson's effect of that experiment won't show up until 2020 or 2030 when the extent of the parkinson's epidemic is fully known.

so here's my positive, my logical point: somewhere, right now, is a teenager or a 20-something popping the ecstacy pill that will put them over the threshold that will mean they get parkinsons. prove me wrong!

now the question becomes: how many e users will get parkinson's in their lifetime because of their e use? 10 of them? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?

the question is not whether or not i am right, the question is statistics: how right am i?

the question is not if, then question is when, and to what extent?

there will be a parkinson's epidemic, mark my words. and i am not spreading fud. fud is saying "don't take your boat across the atlantic, you'll hit an iceberg, be very afraid of icebergs!" i have no proof that the boat will hit icebergs. all i have proven is that i am afraid of icebergs. i would be a victom of fud. but i am not that guy standing on the docks.

what i am saying is not fud, it is common sense: i am in the boat, i am in the lookout tower, and i see the iceberg ahead, and i know we will hit it. and so we should be afraid. not fear, uncertainty and doubt for no reason. fear, certainty, and reason.

in the boat, moving forward, iceberg in front. taking e, killing dopamine receptors, bringing on parkinson's.

so for you, i say, "iceberg, dead ahead!" let us see if you get in the liferaft, or grab a nice cold drink. ;-P

you prove your negative, you take your impossible stance. i have proven my positive. i have reason on my side, you don't. fud? you have the mirror image of fud.

if fud is anxiety for no reason, then you have false security when you should be anxious. a tree is falling on you and you look up at it and say to yourself "trees don't hurt me." just as clueless, just as dangerous, just as false as fud. you have sucs. security, unreason, certainty, stupidity. lol ;-P

no wait, clud. clueless, and dangerous . lol ;-P

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

True enough (5.00 / 1) (#206)
by Control Group on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 06:54:52 PM EST

It is impossible to prove a negative. For example: we, as a race, have no way of knowing if repetitive usage of a mouse will cause one's dominant arm to fall off after 80 years. The mouse hasn't been around for 80 years. I can't prove it won't. I also see no reason to think it will, though, and I do see reason to use the mouse - it makes using the computer more convenient (well, that's debatable, I suppose, but give it to me in the name of argument ;)).

I see the same problem with your argument: is it possible that ecstasy will cause Parkinson's? Certainly. It's also possible it will cause epilepsy, liver spots, Alzheimer's, gangrene, measles, and/or extreme indolence. But just because I have no reason not to think it will do that, does not provide me with a reason to think that it will.

So why do you pick Parkinson's in particular as the ill effects of MDMA? Well, (I hear you say in my head), because Parkinson's is a result of the death of dopamine receptors in the brain, and MDMA accelerates the death of dopamine receptors!

BUT WAIT: you have just proposed a falsifiable hypothesis, subject to experimentation. You originally pointed out a study that indicates that MDMA causes accelerated decay of dopamine receptors in monkeys. Fantastic. I read this, and I say to myself, "he's got a point." Jjayson then responds with six other peer-reviewed articles saying that the study you quoted was inaccurate, and that no such results were indicated.

You say, but that's a negative, they can't prove that MDMA won't cause the problem, they just say that it this study doesn't. True enough. In that respect, you are 100% correct. However, this has also been the case with every other innovation in human history.

More generally, it's the case with all science. I can't prove that the polywater experiment didn't work, and I can't prove that the cold fusion claims weren't reportedly correctly. All I can go by is that no one else has been able to duplicate the results - this is enough for me, and therefore I choose to believe that polywater is bogus, and no one has successfully achieved cold fusion.

I use that phrase carefully: "choose to believe," because that is, admittedly, what I am doing. You, evidently, have chosen to believe the original study which indicates that ecstasy kills dopamine receptors. That is your prerogative, of course. And if you're right, you'll be amongst the Parkinson's-free for more of your life.

My only point was that you've presented very little reason (aside from your personal conviction, of course) for anyone else to accept this as true. To use your analogy: you're standing on the bow of the ship, crying "iceberg!" at the top of your lungs. I look forward, and I can't see any iceberg. When I ask you how you know, you simply say "FACT! There's an iceberg! FACT! If we hit it, we'll sink," but you provide no argument whatsoever to explain why I can't see the iceberg. So I call in other experts: someone with binoculars, someone with a telescope, someone manning a radar tower, someone with satellite imagery, and say "This man sees an iceberg ahead, should we turn the ship?" They consult their instruments, and every one of them says "No, we see no evidence of an iceberg ahead." Your response at this point is to say "Yes, but we've never sailed these waters before, you can't PROVE there's no iceberg there, because you can't prove a negative!!"

At which point, I say to you: "You're right. I can prove no such thing." And I then proceed to not turn the ship.

In other words, lack of reason not to believe a thing does not, in my mind, equate to reason to believe a thing. Ockham's razor.

(Bear in mind, of course, that I make this point based on my standards for argumentation. I neither agree with jjayson's original post, nor do I think e is a good idea)

***
"Oh, nothing. It just looks like a simple Kung-Fu Swedish Rastafarian Helldemon."
[ Parent ]

i got you halfway there (none / 0) (#210)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 08:04:37 PM EST

you say good things. i like them. i like your take on my iceberg analogy. you have shown i have influenced your opinion. thank you for genuinely listening to me. a lot of kuro5hin (or elsewhere)can just be a bunch of negative flamewars where no one moves from their position or really listens to the other person. you are actually listening to me. thank you.

let's see if i can take you over the threshold. let's see if i can convince you completely of my position.

first off, it's occam's razor, not ockham's. and your definition of it is wrong. the correct definition is: all explanations being equal, it's the simplest one that is probably right.

ok, so apply occam's razor:

parkinson's is caused by too few dopamine receptors.

mdma kills dopamine receptors.

therefore, mdma accelarates the natural slide that exists in all of us towards parkinson's.

you are basically agreeing with me that i am right about this, but then you waffle about my conclusion.

you say i see an iceberg, but no one else sees it. they see it. you see it to. you agree with me. but then what i think what you are saying to me in essence is this: "well, is it such a bad thing, really, if we hit the iceberg? we can only see a little of it sticking out of the water... it could be just an icecube, or just the size of a house, and we'll roll right over it."

it's like this: if you agree with me, essentially, about my little occam's razor send up, then the question is simply, what extent of mdma use is conscionable? 10 pills? 100 pills? 1000 pills?

amongst the current crop of heavy e users, how many will get parkinson's because of it? 1%? 20%? 80%?

you are right, we don't know. but you agree with me that it will be some amount.

and here is my point: we know alcohol, ethanol, use causes liver damage. but you have to drink like daily for years to get it. we also know drinking wood alcohol, methanol, will make you blind after only a few uses, and destroy your liver permanently very fast. absinthe is not as bad as methanol, but not as good as ethanol. antifreeze, glycerol, is worse than all of them.

how do we know these things? many years of these chemicals use has passed.

how long has e use passed? not long enough for the parkinsons, or lack thereof, to show up. like only the last 20 years throughout human history.

so which is mdma like? antifreeze? wood alcohol? absinthe? or plain ol' booze?

make your bets.

i know i have.

you say this: it is a big unknown, so how can i make my bet?

i am saying this: it is not a big unknown, it is a partial unknown, and the way it is trending is not good. the only question is the degree of not goodness. so i have made my bet.

have you?

you can abstain from betting, but how responsible is that considering what we are talking about?

It is impossible to prove a negative. For example: we, as a race, have no way of knowing if repetitive usage of a mouse will cause one's dominant arm to fall off after 80 years. The mouse hasn't been around for 80 years. I can't prove it won't. I also see no reason to think it will, though, and I do see reason to use the mouse - it makes using the computer more convenient (well, that's debatable, I suppose, but give it to me in the name of argument ;)).

extensive, bad use of a mouse will lead to carpal tunnel syndrome in some people. but this effect is very minor. how can i say this? because there are less unknowns involved. and we understand biomechanics a lot better than brain chemistry. you can look at how someone clicks a mouse. you can't look at dopamine receptors dying unless you have a PET scanner at your rave party. besides, what if we DO see an epidemic of carpal tunnel syndrome when the current crop of computer users reach their elderly years? same argument: is mouse use like booze, absinthe, wood alcohol, or antifreeze? we don't know yet, but biomechanics tell us its probably like booze. we don't understand enough about dopamine receptors to draw a trend line to show e use is like one of the 4 chemicals.

I see the same problem with your argument: is it possible that ecstasy will cause Parkinson's? Certainly. It's also possible it will cause epilepsy, liver spots, Alzheimer's, gangrene, measles, and/or extreme indolence. But just because I have no reason not to think it will do that, does not provide me with a reason to think that it will.

no, totally wrong. all of the other things you mention are not involved with dopamine. not even alzheimers. alzheimers is about protein plaques forming where memories should be.

 
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

William of Ockham (none / 0) (#216)
by spiralx on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 06:35:24 AM EST

Here. It is Ockham's Razor.

Please let me reassure those who are leaning towards foreskin envy that your balls will start smelling long before the head of your penis does, foreskin o
[ Parent ]

ok thanks (none / 0) (#221)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 11:11:42 AM EST

i'm glad you clued me in. now my entire argument falls like a house of cards. without you i am clueless moron.

google search, occam's razor

Results 1 - 10 of about 27,200

google search, ockham's razor

Results 1 - 10 of about 16,500
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Hmm, ironically... (none / 0) (#230)
by Dephex Twin on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 02:12:37 PM EST

if you go by Occam's Razor to determine the correct spelling, you would conclude the "Occam" spelling is probably the correct one!


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
lol (none / 0) (#231)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 02:35:30 PM EST

in fairness to spiralx, he is right about william of ockham. and i am right about it being occam's razor... how the spelling difference came up, who knows. but in reality, it's just me and spiralx butting heads over a stupid minor point. i was wrong to assert occam's razor as correct without any consideration of the history, and he was wrong to assert the history without a consideration of the bizarre, but more widely adapted alternate spelling. either way, really, who cares! we are both head butting morons on that point. ;-P

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]
Still hardly convincing. (none / 0) (#217)
by grahamsz on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 09:24:18 AM EST

I'm prepared to agree that parkinsons is caused by the decay of dopamine receptors - i haven't researched this but it's hardly central to my argument.

As I see it, it's entirely possible that ecstasy whilst destroying some receptors makes the remaining ones stronger. There's certainly evidence to support that it can act as an aid to persons with parkinsons.

Unlikely (i'll admit) but perhaps what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.

Perhaps the dopamine receptors which e kills off might have been the first to go as parkinsons develops and maybe since they are already gone you wont notice the effects of parkinsons until later than you otherwise would.

My real point is that neither of you can in fact prove this either way. circletimessquare seems to be taking two facts and tying them together with an unprovable (and undisprovable) argument - doesn't really convince me.
--
Sell your digital photos - I've made enough to buy a taco today
[ Parent ]

wait 20 years (none / 0) (#223)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 11:18:49 AM EST

wait 20 years

think of me again.

a dopamine receptor is a dopamine receptor is a dopamine receptor. they really don't come in small, regular, supersize. this is not like exercising muscles and having them regrow stronger. dopamine receptors don't work like that. medicine is still looking for a way to regrow them. that is why there is the big debate over stem cell research. science has found stem cells to be the only group of cells primitive enough to grow things like... dopamine receptors. that is why people like michael j fox and christopher reeves petition congress to keep stem cell research open. nerve cells do NOT operate like muscle cells. that is the only avenue medicine knows of so far open to nerve cell regeneration for muscular dystrophy, parkinson's severed spinal chord, etc. nerve cells DO grow and multiply well into adulthood. otherwise, you would not form new memories. but the primitive nerve cells, the ones at the base of the brain, like the basal ganglia where dopamine receptors are, they do not.
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

science, as in scientology (none / 0) (#243)
by kableh on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 03:56:06 PM EST

listen to me.
No. You are an idiot spreading FUD, and as such should be ignored.
i am not arguing with you about the evils of the us government drug policy
Well perhaps you should be? The lack of REAL information on this subject is a direct result of the ass-backwards drug policies of this nation.
mdma, the chemical, permanently overloads and shuts down dopamine receptors in the basal ganglia.
Source?
fact.
Hardly.
meanwhile, i have proof of receptor damage. and i have proof of how parkinson's disease is acquired. it is not very hard to see the connection and see the coming epdemic.
First of all, correlation is not causation. Second, there are plently of widely held medical "truths" that later get disproved by research. Third, my government's policy towards illicit drugs makes me highly suspicious of any "facts" they spout.
are you so ready to defy my assertion that ecstacy use permanently destroys dopamine receptors? am i making that up? am i spreading fud and propaganda for no good reason?
Yes. Maybe, though you might just be stupid. And yea, it would appear so.
i am a recreational drug user. i am not a hypocrit.
Therefore you are the leading authority about the effects of MDMA?
wake up, or become a statistic.
Agreed! For once we agree!

People DIE because they don't know the TRUTH about the risks assocaited with MDMA use. This is a direct result of DARE and Nancy Reagan and people like you.

The dosage of MDMA plays a big part. Combining it with other chemicals plays a big part too. For example, consuming DXM (often in fake pills) with MDMA causes seritonin syndrome, and will probably kill you. That is a REAL danger, but most people don't know because they are so used to government/parents/"educators" crying wolf.

[ Parent ]
truth (none / 0) (#247)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 04:16:32 PM EST

the truth is no one knows what will happen in 2020-2030 when the first batch of mdma users hits the parkinson's age zone.

there is no study. there can be no study. nothing has happened yet. i can't point to truth to support my contentions. neither can you. no one can.

and here is the crux of it all: given such a situation, what is more responsible? fud? or false bliss?

i do not spread fud. it is not an unknown that mdma will cause parkinson's in some people. the only unknown is the DEGREE. so i have fear and CERTAINTY. the only unknown is not whether or not i am right, but to what DEGREE i am right.

in such a scenario, my fear and alarmism is SUPERIOR to false bliss and a false sense of security on the subject.

end of story.
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Thank you (none / 0) (#197)
by spiralx on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 04:40:10 PM EST

For providing such a marvellous rebuttal to this clown's claims.

Please let me reassure those who are leaning towards foreskin envy that your balls will start smelling long before the head of your penis does, foreskin o
[ Parent ]

reasoning remixed (1.00 / 2) (#200)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 05:05:28 PM EST

follow my reasoning here and tell me where it fails. and then tell me if i am spreading fud, or just common sense.

there is no study, anywhere, that shows that parkinsonism results from mdma use.

why? because such a study is IMPOSSIBLE.

why? other drugs- morphine, cocaine, marijuana, etc., have been in use by thousands of human beings for millenia. their long term effects are well understood. think about the use of strange and new chemical pasticides in food crops and why that makes people nervous. no long term proof of harmlessness.

when did we start using mdma?

the 1980s! no one has lived long enough to show the conneciton between mdma and parkinsonism.

it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to show you the CONCLUSIVE study that mdma leads to parkinsonism.

but, here's the crux of the argument, where i think i lose you and where i think you should follow:

it is hard to prove a negative. just look at the un running around iraq looking for nuclear stockpiles. it is hard to prove a negative. and easy to prove a positive.

you are trying to prove a negative. you are saying mdma use does not necessarily lead to parkinsonism. i am trying to prove a positive. i am asserting there is a connection. so let me make my proof postive point:

what is parkinsonism? it is the cumulative loss of dopamine receptors over the human lifetime. given a long enough life, we would all get parkinsons, as all of our dopamine receptors decay and die. some of us would get it at age 60, some at age 80, some at 100, some at 120, etc.

so what are we doing with mdma use? we are creating a giant experiment. we are accelerating the death of dopamine receptors in young healthy people. the parkinson's effect of that experiment won't show up until 2020 or 2030 when the extent of the parkinson's epidemic is fully known.

so here's my positive, my logical point: somewhere, right now, is a teenager or a 20-something popping the ecstacy pill that will put them over the threshold that will mean they get parkinsons. prove me wrong!

now the question becomes: how many e users will get parkinson's in their lifetime because of their e use? 10 of them? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?

the question is not whether or not i am right, the question is statistics: how right am i?

the question is not if, then question is when, and to what extent?

there will be a parkinson's epidemic, mark my words. and i am not spreading fud. fud is saying "don't take your boat across the atlantic, you'll hit an iceberg, be very afraid of icebergs!" i have no proof that the boat will hit icebergs. all i have proven is that i am afraid of icebergs. i would be a victom of fud. but i am not that guy standing on the docks.

what i am saying is not fud, it is common sense: i am in the boat, i am in the lookout tower, and i see the iceberg ahead, and i know we will hit it. and so we should be afraid. not fear, uncertainty and doubt for no reason. fear, certainty, and reason.

in the boat, moving forward, iceberg in front. taking e, killing dopamine receptors, bringing on parkinson's.

so for you, i say, "iceberg, dead ahead!" let us see if you get in the liferaft, or grab a nice cold drink. ;-P

you prove your negative, you take your impossible stance. i have proven my positive. i have reason on my side, you don't. fud? you have the mirror image of fud.

if fud is anxiety for no reason, then you have false security when you should be anxious. a tree is falling on you and you look up at it and say to yourself "trees don't hurt me." just as clueless, just as dangerous, just as false as fud. you have sucs. security, unreason, certainty, stupidity. lol ;-P

no wait, clud. clueless, and dangerous . lol ;-P
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

I forget (none / 0) (#204)
by Dephex Twin on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 06:32:57 PM EST

Did ecstacy cause... Alzeimer's?  No wait-- that's not it.  Ecstacy affects... um... dopa--- dopa-something.  Hmm, I wonder if anyone has an opinion on whether ecstacy has any connection to Parkinson's disease?  Hmmmm.... I just am not sure.  I don't think anyone has really tackled this issue yet.  Maybe we could get more discussion going on the topic?


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
lol ;-P (none / 0) (#209)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 07:33:08 PM EST

your sig is unintentionally ironic and funny in context

Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

reasoning flawed (5.00 / 1) (#239)
by kableh on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 03:25:18 PM EST

follow my reasoning here and tell me where it fails.
When you opened your mouth (figuratively).
then tell me if i am spreading fud, or just common sense.
FUD.
when did we start using mdma?

the 1980s!
Actually, MDMA has been around since the early 1900s, when Merck patented it.
it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to show you the CONCLUSIVE study that mdma leads to parkinsonism.
Right, because the government and people like you insist on spreading FUD instead of funding unbiased research. Others have pointed to information showing that the Ricaurte studies are flawed, so I won't expound on that.
so what are we doing with mdma use? we are creating a giant experiment. we are accelerating the death of dopamine receptors in young healthy people. the parkinson's effect of that experiment won't show up until 2020 or 2030 when the extent of the parkinson's epidemic is fully known.
What makes you say that? Do you have ANY reputable study to back this up, or is it all supposition?

The fact of the matter is that MDMA doesn't affect the dopamine systems as much as most amphetamines. Also, the dosage plays a big part. An initial does of MDMA releases a flood of seratonin into the brain, but with subsequent doses there is nothing to release. It is thought that taking multiple doses of MDMA is much worse for you.

And this is why spreading FUD like you and The Man do is so dangerous. We should be educating people on the dangers of MDMA, but accept that people will use it and instead do everything we can to minimize the risk. There is a risk associated with any activity, and when you start playing with neurotransmitters there is a BIG risk.
the question is not whether or not i am right
Sure it is. You are wrong.
...yada yada yada...
Lame analogies prove nothing. Get over it.

[ Parent ]
flaws (none / 0) (#242)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 03:55:55 PM EST

Actually, MDMA has been around since the early 1900s, when Merck patented it.

gee thanks moron. i'm glad you know that.

now tell me when we actually started using pharmacological levels of it in a large population of people? or am i to suppose my whole argument is flawed because one guy took it in 1960? what exactly is your point other than you know how to type and argue?

The fact of the matter is that MDMA doesn't affect the dopamine systems as much as most amphetamines.

i'm glad you have your time machine to the year 2030. but since i'm such a friggin' moron, you tell me: in 2030, how many parkinson's cases will there be that can be traced to mdma use? you tell me, since you know so much. no seriously, i would like to hear your input.

And this is why spreading FUD like you and The Man do is so dangerous. We should be educating people on the dangers of MDMA, but accept that people will use it and instead do everything we can to minimize the risk. There is a risk associated with any activity, and when you start playing with neurotransmitters there is a BIG risk.

you know i am not The Man. so why do you equate me with The Man. does anyone who views e SPECIFICALLY with distrust have to be "The Man?" there is no critical disagreement with your pov that doesn't stem from independent thought?

i'll tell you about fud: alarmism on e use is more responsible than YOUR FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY.

of course people will use it! but we don't want people running around saying there is NO RISK. THAT IS WHO I AM ARGUING WITH. i am not saying the way to deal with this is to yell at teenagers! if you want to start a NEW discussion on the proper way to deal with e use, then fine! but don't extrapolate what i would do about e use from my views on e use!

i used to be an AIDS educator on the lower east side of manhattan. you don't have to lecture ME on how to talk to teenagers about things, ok? if we started that discussion NOW i think you would find my views overlap with yours 100%, ok? so stop being prejudicial and assuming things about me and my views asshole.

look at synaesthesia's thread if you don't think people like him and his false sense of security are more dangerous than people like me with my alarmism.

and i don't think i spread fud. that is fear uncertainty doubt. more like fear flowing from certainty. i think on this issue, false bliss and security is MORE dangerous. capice?
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

*sigh* again (none / 0) (#248)
by kableh on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 04:18:05 PM EST

gee thanks moron. i'm glad you know that.
Wow, we're off to a great start.
now tell me when we actually started using pharmacological levels of it in a large population of people? or am i to suppose my whole argument is flawed because one guy took it in 1960?
Not to answer an honest question with a question, but how long have we been doing serious studies of the effects of marijuana? And how long have those studies been done without being tainted by vested interests and fearmongering?
you know i am not The Man. so why do you equate me with The Man.
Simple. Because you don't have sources to back you up besides studies conducted by the same highly biased government funded researcher. EVERY article I have ever read about MDMA use cited the Ricaurte studies which have been dismissed by the medical community as highly flawed.
i'll tell you about fud: alarmism on e use is more responsible than YOUR FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY.
Bullshit.

I'm 21, to give you a frame of reference. The biggest fuckups I know were the kids who were sheilded all their lives. I went through DARE, and had a bunch of cops equate smoking marijuana with using heroin, cocaine, or any other drug. I was lucky enough to have a level headed mother who knew better to educate me. Some of my other peers weren't so lucky. They smoke pot, figure out that they've been lied to their whole lives, then move on to harder drugs.

Alarmism is dangerous in this respect because it breeds distrust for authority. We could really save lives is we just educated people on ways to MINIMIZE the risks assocated with MDMA use.

I don't have a false sense of security. I just balance the risks with the benefits to make an educated choice.
of course people will use it! but we don't want people running around saying there is NO RISK. THAT IS WHO I AM ARGUING WITH.
I'm not saying there is no risk, and I don't think anyone else is either. You still are arguing with me, if not with my points.
i am not saying the way to deal with this is to yell at teenagers! if you want to start a NEW discussion on the proper way to deal with e use, then fine! but don't extrapolate what i would do about e use from my views on e use!
It doesn't matter if you yell, whisper, or use a really polite tone, lies don't work. I'm telling you this from the perspective of a young person who grew up with this stuff, and who got his fair share of being lied to growing up.
look at synaesthesia's thread if you don't think people like him and his false sense of security are more dangerous than people like me with my alarmism.
I'm not sure what your point is. I read synaesthesia's comments and he seems to be saying the same thing I am: prove it. Several of us know that the Ricaurte study is flawed, and it is the most cited, so naturally we are skeptical of your wild claims.

And frankly, I think you are way more dangerous.
and i don't think i spread fud. that is fear uncertainty doubt. more like fear flowing from certainty.
You call blind speculation certainty? Show us a study. Really. I would LOVE to be proved wrong.
i think on this issue, false bliss and security is MORE dangerous. capice?
Well then, I shudder to think that you educated kids about AIDS.

[ Parent ]
stuck in the loop (none / 0) (#249)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 04:23:26 PM EST

yes, show me the study, show me the study...

loop

fact. alarmism on the subject of mdma use is safer than false bliss. how you deal with young people on the issue is AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTER.
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Have you ever been a kid? (none / 0) (#250)
by kableh on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 04:34:34 PM EST

fact. alarmism on the subject of mdma use is safer than false bliss. how you deal with young people on the issue is AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTER.
Fact? Explain to me how lying to kids is safer than assuming they are going to hear about it from their friends and doing everything you can to make sure they minimize risk.

I know plenty of people who use MDMA. Most of them have no idea of the side effects, and therefore don't think twice about taking 2 or 20. That is because when they hear any "authority" talking about MDMA use it is just "Ecstasy kills" and "<such and such> died in a nightclub from Ecstasy" and "drugs are bad, mmmkay?".

You admit to marijuana use. When you were a teenager wasn't everyone talking about the dangers of pot? And when you figured out that you weren't going to get man-tits and that it wasn't going to make you go insane and rape women in dark alleys, didn't you gain a certain amount of mistrust for The Man®?

If you have dealt with teenagers so much I would think you would have a good understanding of all this, and use the same levity in making your judgements.

[ Parent ]
subject change (none / 0) (#255)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 05:20:04 PM EST

ok, you have CHANGED THE SUBJECT

the subject before was IS MDMA DANGEROUS

now you have made the subject WHAT DO YOU TELL KIDS ABOUT IT

are we clear on that? ok? since you have CHANGED THE SUBJECT i will address your issues, but don't take potshots at me when I AM TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE FIRST OFF. ok?

#1: have i ever been a kid? have you? your attitude, apparently, is to patronize them. i would tell them all i know, and let them draw their own conclusions.

That is because when they hear any "authority" talking about MDMA use it is just "Ecstasy kills" and "<such and such> died in a nightclub from Ecstasy" and "drugs are bad, mmmkay?".

nice words. since when did those become my words. on the SPECIFIC drug ecstacy, i would tell kids that mdma kills dopamine receptors. i would tell them that parkinson's results from dopamine receptor death. i would explain anything about those subjects they don't understand, and i would tell them to draw their own conclusions. i would tell them not to let anyone tell them it is 100% safe or 100% dangerous because no one knows what will happen because no one has used them long enough in human history to know for certain.

i would SHIELD them from my alarmism and i would SHIELD them from false bliss. YOU patronize kids by assuming they can't draw their own conclusions from the facts. all you do is give kids the facts. you don't get emotional.

and then you blatantly equate me with the man AGAIN. i have already said i am not the man, i do represent the man, i have nothing to do with the man, ok? i am not spreading governmental propaganda. my views are the result of my own independent thought. will you please stop equating me with the man! if in your mind that is the only way to deal with me, then fine. apparently, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a governmental stooge. whatever. your prejudicial crap speaks volumes about the way you reason.
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

subject? (none / 0) (#256)
by kableh on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 05:37:56 PM EST

ok, you have CHANGED THE SUBJECT

the subject before was IS MDMA DANGEROUS
Well the subject has changed a few times, but what the hell....

My post was in response you your post claiming MDMA caused Parkinson's. First off, that is a very broad claim. MDMA abuse most certainly has serious effects on one's health, like the abuse of any drug, illicit or not. Second, dosage plays a big role. Third, you have yet to cite any information indicating that MDMA directly affected dopamine receptors except for the one study that others have pointed out is exceptionally flawed.
#1: have i ever been a kid? have you? your attitude, apparently, is to patronize them. i would tell them all i know, and let them draw their own conclusions.
If you had any reading comprehension skills whatsoever you would see that I AM A KID. I'm 21 years old.

My attitude is NOT to patronize them. READ MY FUCKING POSTS BEFORE DRAWING A CONCLUSION. I've given you that courtesy to this point despite your lack of anything worthwhile to say.

As I said, I've grown up with DARE, and I've grown up with a bunch of rich white kids whos parents never bothered educating them about drugs. Therefore, the only "education" they received were the lame "This is your brain" ads. These kids, I found, were the most likely to abuse drugs later in life. I had a mom who understood that kids did drugs, and did her best to tell me the truth about drugs and her drug use as a teen. I come from a family with a history of addictive personalities, but thanks to my loving mom I have avoided the pitfalls that many of my peers fell into. Is it so hard to understand why I find your attitude dangerous?

You tell them all you "know", and it is the same party line they get from anti-drug ads, and your words go in one ear and out the other. I'm trying to tell you this from the point of someone who has seen the effects of this kind of thinking, directly. THAT is a fact.
... blah blah, more tripe ...
You obviously haven't been paying attention. I said that along with telling kids facts, you have to understand that kids do drugs anyways, and make sure they have the whole picture: dangers, effects, and ways to minimize the risks assocated with it.

I live in a city where a lot of people use MDMA, and a lot of people have died. They wouldn't have died had they know the dangers assocated with it. Dangers like making sure you are hydrated, making sure you don't get a bunk pill which could contain DXM and then taking an MDMA pill, making sure you don't use MDMA if you are taking an MAOI, so on.
and then you blatantly equate me with the man AGAIN.
Exactly. You spout "facts" without backing them up, and don't bother telling anyone information which could save their lives. That is exactly what The Man does.

[ Parent ]
good lord (none / 0) (#258)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 06:04:30 PM EST

ok, i am the man.

all of my words are worth shit.

my attitude of telling kids the facts sucks.

there is absolutely no value in my position. my position sucks, your position is the only one that is good and works.

disregard me completely. continue equating my position with "this is your brain on drugs" commercials. that is exactly equivalent to my words. i have nothing of value at all to tell you from my pov.

happy now?

oh yeah, i forgot, you're 21, you're just a kid. and i thought you were an adult at the age of 21. i'll remember to be more dismissive of your words next time and stop treating your words as an adult's words, and assume that, since you're 21, your words are that of an impressionable child, and i should treat you with kids gloves, or be patronizing, or whatever the hell it is you are trying to say by calling yourself a child. jesus christ you are a work of art.

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0) (#264)
by kableh on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 10:48:48 PM EST

You obviously can't read.

I told you I was 21 to give you a frame of reference. I've grown up with people like you telling me drugs are bad. MDMA wasn't a concern back then, but more recently it is, and the media attention it gets targeted towards young people is useless. KIDS ARE DYING. THEY DIE BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU DON'T GIVE THEM THE INFORMATION THEY NEED.

You have yet to individually address any of the points I bring up. You have yet to cite any reputable source of information. Yet you accuse me of being childish. How amusing.

[ Parent ]
on and on and on... (none / 0) (#282)
by circletimessquare on Sun Feb 02, 2003 at 10:59:57 PM EST

I told you I was 21 to give you a frame of reference.

you wrote exactly this two comments above:

If you had any reading comprehension skills whatsoever you would see that I AM A KID. I'm 21 years old.

so now i have a frame of reference, right? then you write this now:

Yet you accuse me of being childish. How amusing.

amusing indeed. the facts just sort of move around your head, malleable to your every need, but not really grounded in reality, apparently.

I've grown up with people like you telling me drugs are bad. MDMA wasn't a concern back then, but more recently it is, and the media attention it gets targeted towards young people is useless. KIDS ARE DYING. THEY DIE BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU DON'T GIVE THEM THE INFORMATION THEY NEED.

find the post, in this giant thread, where i say drugs are bad. i have always been very careful to say recreational drug use is fine, as i am a recreational drug user, but that mdma SPECIFICALLY is bad news. now who is being irresponsible? the words fly around your head, and you use them as you see fit, but your accusations are groundless within this very thread. so how are you representing yourself to me, or anyone else reading this as someone i should take seriously?

anyone else reading this can see all of this as plainly as i can see your words IN THIS THREAD. you have made a fool of yourself TWICE now. by saying i say all drug use is bad, when i have taken great pains to say the opposite, and then with the childish double play on the childishness issue shown above.

so what are you driving at? that you can type and argue? or that you can type and argue and make sense? your missing the last one. you are an argumentative person, you stand your ground. this is good for you. but you are not much more, as you keep putting your foot in your mouth.

KIDS ARE DYING. THEY DIE BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU DON'T GIVE THEM THE INFORMATION THEY NEED.

people like me?

really, just like me? you know who i am?

i agree they need information, so here it is.

information:

mdma kills dopamine recpetors.

dopamine receptor death leads to parkinsons.

facts, truth.

kids: don't let me tell you you will get parkinson's from taking mdma. but don't let anyone else tell you that you won't.

no one has lived long enough to know the truth. there is no truth. there is no study. in 2020, or 2030, we will know. until then, choose wisely when it comes to mdma. we don't have enough experience with mdma to take it safely. we understand marijuana, heroin, cocaine. we don't understand mdma. don't let anyone put your mind to ease on that last point. we have only been using it for 20 years. that is the truth. anyone who tries to give you a false sense of security about mdma use is lying to you.

that's the facts jack

capice?

lol ;-P
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

blah (5.00 / 1) (#290)
by kableh on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 03:24:31 PM EST

so now i have a frame of reference, right?
Right. I tell you that because I have grown up with modern drug policy, and have seen its effects first hand. I've had friends DIE from drug use. Deaths that could have been prevented with a bit of truthful, unbiased information on minimizing risk.
amusing indeed. the facts just sort of move around your head, malleable to your every need, but not really grounded in reality, apparently.
And your facts are? You are citing a study that has been shown to be nonsense, tossing around 'facts' that are rubbish.
people like me?
really, just like me? you know who i am?
I know enough, based on the 'facts' that you are spouting around here.

information:
mdma kills dopamine recpetors.
?

You keep repeating this 'fact' without backing it up. Please do.

The fact of the matter is that the Ricaurte studies are all anyone has to go on, since MDMA is a Schedule 1 drug and all but impossible to do legitimate research with. Dosage plays an important part in all this, which is the fatal flaw with the Ricaurte study. You are telling me that taking 1 dose has the same net effect as taking 10 doses?

I'm not saying taking MDMA is safe, just that claiming occasional MDMA use will cause Parkinson's is misleading. Prozac and other antidepressants have been proven to have long term effects on brain chemistry. Care to speculate on what effects that will have in 20 to 30 years?
kids: don't let me tell you you will get parkinson's from taking mdma. but don't let anyone else tell you that you won't.
Fair enough. Perhaps something we can all agree on is that the ass backwards drug policy of the US isn't helping this matter?

As for this crap:
by saying i say all drug use is bad, when i have taken great pains to say the opposite, and then with the childish double play on the childishness issue shown above.
I don't claim that you say all drug use is bad, just that you say all MDMA use is bad. I think that is a dangerous statement for several reasons: 1. People will use it anyways, we should focus on minimizing risk. 2. A blanket statement like that implies that 1 dose, 10 doses, is all the same. That is what I take issue with. 3. It is the same party line we've been hearing from The Man for a long time now, and we know that doesn't work.

As for my "childish double play", as I said, the only reason I mention my age is that I'm in the demographic that is most affected right now by drug policy, and have grown up in a time when Ecstasy use is greatly rising.

A big problem I see these days is that everyone equates MDMA to "soft drugs" like marijuana, and that is a dangerous belief as well. It is an amphetamine, it does have dangerous side effects if abused, and that may even apply to occasional, responsible use. Until we know for sure, people will have to balance the possible risks with the potential benefits and reach their conclusions. I personally don't think anyone underage should be using MDMA, but I'm a realist, and just want to make sure people play it as safe as possible.

[ Parent ]
good gawd (none / 0) (#295)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 02:06:14 PM EST

you win

i'm just a troll

i do not have anything positive to add to the debate, you have nothing to learn from me, you do not need to appreciate my pov

i am crackpot troll spreading fud for no reason

my alarmism over dopamine receptors and mdma use is irresponsible

while your false sense of security over the issue is responsible

happy now?

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

You're not a troll... (5.00 / 1) (#296)
by Dephex Twin on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 02:41:55 PM EST

You're a crapflooder.  This is not the first post that is cut-and-pasted around in different threads here.

You drive your point so rigidly, without any room for compromise, and to such absurd excess, that you lost anyone that was nodding their heads in the beginning, let alone those who didn't agree to start out.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

i'm just bored at work man, arguing on kuro5hin (none / 0) (#297)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 02:44:33 PM EST

your criticisms are completely correct.

but you are assuming that i am the only one so rigid, and i am only arguing with myself.

your criticisms apply equally to those who i am arguing with.
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

They apply... (none / 0) (#298)
by Dephex Twin on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 03:23:28 PM EST

But I don't think they apply equally.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
truedat (none / 0) (#299)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 04:11:17 PM EST

since i was the original poster, that is true

it should apply unequally to me since i was the one who started the thread

but i can live with that ;-P

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Ecstacy (none / 0) (#194)
by spiralx on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 04:20:41 PM EST

parkinson's

Maybe you should talk to my friend Tim, who has found that the only way he achieve a normal state free from the crippling symptoms of Parkinson's disease is through taking ecstacy.

Besides, there are studies for this and studies for that, and yet they're still inconclusive. Undoubtedly long-term use has a detrimental effect upon your brain, but to what level nobody really knows. And the people I know that have been doing pills for nearly 20 years neither have Parkinson's nor are chronically depressed... generally they're very laid back people.

jjayson: you rant against porn and you promote ecstacy? you are seriously one fucked up bozo. i mean, you sound genuinely psychologically damaged. you have done enough brain damage to yourself.

I don't agree with his stance on porn, but I do agree with his stance on ecstasy. Having done hundreds myself over the last seven years I can certainly attest that I've never been happier... of course you're bound to use this as evidence I'm "brain damaged" and incapable of making a rational argument... *sigh*

Please let me reassure those who are leaning towards foreskin envy that your balls will start smelling long before the head of your penis does, foreskin o
[ Parent ]

entrenched (none / 0) (#201)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 05:13:48 PM EST

your longterm use proves that you are entrenched. you have something to lose by admitting the path you took in life was wrong. so you will fight reason and common sense in order to preserve your pride and ego.

ecstacy helps parkinson's?

do you know how laughable that would be if your views were not so dangerous?

you know, when the doctor tells me i have cirrhosis of the liver, i can go out and get drunk and feel better about it too.

same damn thing.

when your hand starts shaking, you will think of me again.
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Actually that would make sense (none / 0) (#205)
by Dephex Twin on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 06:43:27 PM EST

Maybe you should talk to my friend Tim, who has found that the only way he achieve a normal state free from the crippling symptoms of Parkinson's disease is through taking ecstacy.
That actually makes a lot of sense in the Parkinson's-Ecstacy connection. Ecstacy excites or in some way gets the dopamine going in high levels. So, if your dopamine levels are naturally low (like for Parkinson's), taking some is going to get things excited.

This would be analagous to, say, drinking alcohol when you are depressed, which, during the drinking, may make you able to be depression-free for a while, but makes you more depressed after the effects wear off.

Or maybe a better analogy would be... if you have someone going through heroin withdrawal, this is because of bad effects heroin has had on the body, and yet, at that time, if you shot up some heroin, it would make you not feel so bad for a brief period.

Does this idea make sense? The drug could excite certain parts of the body, but leave them increasingly damaged as a result, such that the drug is needed to even get things back to normal (and of course with most current Parkinson's sufferers, the damage may also happen naturally, but the effect is essentially the same).

I'm not really saying this is the case here, and I don't want to enter into the whole argument, I just saw that and had that thought.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
your thought is dead on (none / 0) (#208)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 07:32:01 PM EST

make believe the brain is a fountain, a slow fountain, and leaches something, a chemical, that the brain needs to run properly.

the brain also holds some of this precious commodity in reserves.

drugs either open the floodgate on the reserves, or mimic the precious chemical itself. either way, the levels are hyperelevated to unnatural levels. congratulations, your smashed/ stoned/ drunk/ zonked/ wacked out/ etc.

so it is perfectly reasonable that taking e might calm the symptoms of parkinsons.

but its like, he is damaging his receptors even more, and accelerating his decline all the more by using e. so he winds up with worse parkinsons permanently. mortality sucks. don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message. sorry i have such a bad message to deliver, but there is no escaping my message.

you rip out the reserve stores, and you suck on the fountain until it is sucked dry. it would have run fine for 100 years, but you had to yank and suck on it until you sucked it permanently dry too soon.

the brain slowly doles out this precious chemical. then the drug comes along and says "what the hell is this rationing for? c'mon! let the spigot flow! let the party begin!" and greatly increases the output of that chemical.

until the fragile machinework that makes the precious chemical is fried beyond repair.

i mean, my analogy, and your point, is flawed on so many levels, and people will nitpick it to death.

but the essence of your point and my point are sound.

i am not trying to be an alarmist, and for every drug, the strength of this analogy is different.

but for e? untested over human lifespan as it is? when we know it permanently destroys dopamine receptors?

uh uh. no thanks. get me stoned or drunk. us humans have been doing thc and ethanol for 1000s of years. we have only been doing mdma for 20 years.

the next time you meet a e user who eats organic produce because they don't trust the pesticide chemicals used in typical agriculture, because we don't know about the longterm effects, take a good look at them.

you have just met a giant hypocrit, moron, and/ or ignorant.

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0) (#214)
by spiralx on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 06:25:08 AM EST

Ecstacy has a minimal effect on dopamine in the brain... this appears to be a new effect which is why it has spurred new research into how the seratinogenic system affects Parkinson's sufferers.

Please let me reassure those who are leaning towards foreskin envy that your balls will start smelling long before the head of your penis does, foreskin o
[ Parent ]

Either way... (none / 0) (#219)
by Dephex Twin on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 10:44:24 AM EST

I was more just saying that the story about people who have Parkinson's using ecstacy to relieve the symptoms is not really a strike against the theory of ecstacy causing Parkinson's, as it jives with the way many drugs affect the body.

As far as the actual facts for what causes and affects what, I make no claims.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

you are such a nimrod (1.00 / 2) (#207)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 07:19:41 PM EST

Besides, there are studies for this and studies for that, and yet they're still inconclusive. Undoubtedly long-term use has a detrimental effect upon your brain, but to what level nobody really knows. And the people I know that have been doing pills for nearly 20 years neither have Parkinson's nor are chronically depressed... generally they're very laid back people.

you are such a nimrod.

you are basically AGREEING with me, but you put off the unknown by waffling on the details. so you admit people will get parkinson's from taking e, is that it? but, since no one has lived long enough to find out, well then, go ahead and keep popping the e? so what is acceptable to you? 10% get parkinson's? does that sit well on your conscience? what amount of pill popping results in parkinson's? 10 pills? 100 pills? 1000 pills? but your happy to keep spreading the good e word, right?

you're a fucking piece of work.

open head. remove conscience. keep living.

20 years nimrod! THAT'S IT! don't you think that maybe, just possibly... a little time more is needed? just maybe??? but i see you are ready to start drawing your conclusions about safety now, even though we KNOW e kills dopamine receptors.

fucking incredible.

you are a dangerous influence on everyone around you. you have sold your conscience for the sake of your ego and pride, entrenched in your past bad decisions as they are. regrets suck. your regrets will be a giant pile of stinking shit.

oh i'm sorry, i forgot, i'm a player hater, fud spreading troll, that's all. there's no reason or logic on my argument worth looking at at all. you have me figured out already. right. ignore me completely, move on, i have nothing valuable to say.

hear no evil, see no evil. say no evil. the solution to all your problems in life.

click 1880

10 years ago these guys started taking this thing called absinthe. boy is it great! peace and love through pharmaceuticals man! all you player haters are just trying to rain on our parade. suckers! losers!

(ps: absinthe or wormwood has been in use for centuries... but hit a new craze level in the late 1800s and hyperactivated in the doses it was used on... so my analogy is flawed somewhat, but maybe constructive enough for you to snap out of it)

click 1900

Besides, there are studies for this and studies for that, and yet they're still inconclusive. Undoubtedly long-term use has a detrimental effect upon your liver, but to what level nobody really knows. And the people I know that have been doing absinthe for nearly 20 years neither have liver damage nor have dementia... generally they're very laid back people.

they're very laid back people??!! is that right???

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

click 1910

my friend would just like me to ask everyone here at kuro5hin to make sure they update their organ donor cards. because absinthe has destroyed his liver and if he doesn't get a liver donor in 3 months he will be dead.

click 2003

welcome to reality my friend

but no, i'm just an evil troll spreading fud, right? your false sense of security isn't the problem, my evil fear is the problem. even though my fear is reasonable. i see an iceberg about to hit the ship. what the hell is my problem running all over the deck panicking like a nimcompoop? "calm down dude! you are overreacting!"

am i? or are you underreacting?

i'm not a part of the "you don't get nothing for free!" crowd. it is totally possible we will discover a drug one day that does amazing things for your mind and peace and love and happiness with no long term bad effects or signs of
withdrawal. peace and love thorugh pharmaceuticals.

but mdma just isn't that drug dude. sorry to tell you.

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Heheh (none / 0) (#215)
by spiralx on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 06:30:37 AM EST

You really aren't very bright are you? Not only are your reading skills sorely lacking, but your ability to engage in reasoned debate is somewhere around the level of a pre-schooler. You spout "facts" that have come out of your arse, ignore people that provide refutations (with evidence) that contradict your "arguments" and litter your posts with logical fallacies and ad hominem arguments.

I hope you're a troll. Because otherwise, you really are one of the dumbest people I've ever seen posting here.

Please let me reassure those who are leaning towards foreskin envy that your balls will start smelling long before the head of your penis does, foreskin o
[ Parent ]

yep (none / 0) (#220)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 11:09:01 AM EST

i'm a troll, i'm a preschooler, that's all i am, that's the sum total value of the words i have written, no more. you have nailed it right on the head. ignore me completely, i have nothing valuable to say to you at all.
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]
*sigh* (none / 0) (#222)
by spiralx on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 11:15:09 AM EST

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yet when someone's opinion is based around ignorance and they then decide to be rude and insulting based upon that ignorance, you wonder why people aren't polite in return?

Please let me reassure those who are leaning towards foreskin envy that your balls will start smelling long before the head of your penis does, foreskin o
[ Parent ]

ignorance (none / 0) (#224)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 11:37:40 AM EST

parkinsons's= dopamine receptor decay
mdma=dopamine receptor death
quid pro quo
mdma accelerates the slide towards parkinson's

i am right.

the only question is to what degree i am right.

in 20 years it will be revealed.

1 person? 10 people? 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000?

do you know how many?

you're pretty funny, considering you are rude and insulting yourself. pot. kettle. black.

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

whos ignorant? (none / 0) (#233)
by kableh on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 02:56:52 PM EST

You admittedly smoke pot. Don't you know pot will make you a rapist/infertile/grow breasts? People to this day equate pot with those things, due mostly to all the disinformation going around about illicit drugs.

The reason MDMA gets associated with Parkinson's goes back to the 80s, when a batch of an analog of Demerol was contaminated with MPTP, a known neurotoxin. More info here.

And as spiralx points out later, MDMA has a minimal effect on the dopamine system, different from most amphetamines.

You are doing a disservice to yourself and others by spouting off about something you know nothing about.

[ Parent ]
riddle me this (none / 0) (#237)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 03:17:44 PM EST

thc use is millenia old. we understand ENTIRELY the long term effects of its use and ENTIRELY the risks and DEGREE of the risks involved. mdma use is 2 decades old. you admit mdma effects the dopamine system. that is CERTAIN. the only unknown is the DEGREE of the effect. and that is a bet you are willing to make? do you have a conscience? talk about ignorance? look in the mirror.
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]
*sigh* (none / 0) (#240)
by kableh on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 03:38:20 PM EST

thc use is millenia old. we understand ENTIRELY the long term effects of its use and ENTIRELY the risks and DEGREE of the risks involved.
ENTIRELY? Not quite. Only recently have there been studies showing marijuana's medicinal effects. When I was in grade school they were still telling kids that pot would make you grow breasts, make you infertile, and that smoking a J was like smoking 16 cigarettes.
mdma use is 2 decades old.
Not quite, see my other reply to one of your other inane posts.
you admit mdma effects the dopamine system. that is CERTAIN.
Yes. It is an amphetamine.

BTW, did you know Prozac and other SSRIs affect the seritonin system? It got FDA approval, and there is plenty of information available about its effects. The same cannot be said for MDMA, as there is no economic incentive to, it can't be patented any more.
the only unknown is the DEGREE of the effect.
Agreed. And until more UNBIASED research is done we won't know, and there will be unknowns. Spreading FUD doesn't help things.
and that is a bet you are willing to make?
???

YOU are the one spreading FUD in a public forum. YOU and people like you are the ones gambling with other's lives by not informing them of the FACTS and RISKS associated with recreational drug use, as opposed to blind supposition.
do you have a conscience? talk about ignorance? look in the mirror.
Yes, I have a conscience, which is why I get mad at people like you spreading disinformation. For all the noise you make about "looking in the mirror" and "pot. kettle. black." you would do well to do the same.

[ Parent ]
right back (none / 0) (#245)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 03:59:36 PM EST

mdma use has only been used in pharmacological levels by more than a handful of people since the early 1980s. if you show me some guy took it 1976, fine! but merck discovering it in the 1900, or the year 1000 PROVES NOTHING.

here's the crux of the matter: my alarmism is less dangerous than your false sense of security, your false bliss on the subject. look at synaesthesia's thread. you tell me his blissful ignorance is less dangerous than my responsible approaches to the risks. go ahead, tell me that!
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

I'm a porn watching man. Any women wanna rape me? (4.00 / 4) (#64)
by anyonymous [35789] on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:34:18 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Remember, kids, jjayson's important lesson here: (5.00 / 9) (#74)
by gbd on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 10:28:21 AM EST

Alcohol is bad because it lowers inhibitions and can lead to rape.

You should use ecstasy instead.

--
Gunter glieben glauchen globen.
[ Parent ]

Romanticism (5.00 / 6) (#91)
by Sloppy on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 01:00:59 PM EST

You don't like Valentine's Day because you might be forced to show some affection or that if might remind you of something wonderful? Valentine's Day is day to celebrate love. There is such a thing as romanticism, and if we were all like you, it would probably be dead.
I can't think of anything more contrary to romanticism, than scheduling and ritualizing it. I think it's quite dehumanizing for culture, instead of individuals, to say "This is love day." Valentine's day -- and I mean the actual idea, not just the commercialization of it -- is an attack on romance. It is no surprise to me, that so many people feel an urge to defy it.

I like the idea presented in this article, because it is humanist. Attack Valentine's Day, precisely because someone or something is trying to tell us to love on that day, instead of leaving the matter to our own wills. In a furious rage, destroy that day and put its head on a pike as a lesson to other holidays: This is what happens if you try to tell us how to live. Now that's romance!
"RSA, 2048, seeks sexy young entropic lover, for several clock cycles of prime passion..."
[ Parent ]

It is what it is... (1.00 / 2) (#110)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:33:44 PM EST

Romanticism and love are what you make of it. If somebody telling you to not love doesn't affect you, then why would telling you love another affect you? It is what you make of it. If you decide that you will not show romantic love, then all the card companies in the world are not going to sway you.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Cripe (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by Control Group on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 01:19:57 PM EST

You, sir, seriously need to lighten up.

Idealogue posturings in your average "America is killing Chechen rebels to take over Iraq's global warming communist proletocracy to perpetuate the autocratic regime of King Bush" K5 thread are bad enough. This is ridiculous.

***
"Oh, nothing. It just looks like a simple Kung-Fu Swedish Rastafarian Helldemon."
[ Parent ]

yes, lighten up... (1.00 / 1) (#134)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:47:45 PM EST

dehumanization and setting up a possible rape scenario is a very light hearted activity.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
yes! lighten up! =) (none / 0) (#235)
by kableh on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 03:06:34 PM EST

dehumanization and setting up a possible rape scenario is a very light hearted activity.

If P&T is setting up a possible rape scenario, so is any establishment selling alcohol. Better shut down all the bars! And quick!

There are scumbags out there that will take advantage of a drunken female. There are rapists out there too. If anything, an event like this gives everyone a place to get shitty, and be safe in the comfort of a friend's home.

I have a female friend or two who thinks watching porn is a hoot. I have guy friends who think any porn is revolting. To each his/her own, but let's not make gross exaggerations.

[ Parent ]
cheap geek ass? (5.00 / 4) (#138)
by akp on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 06:30:13 PM EST

What a horrible attitude. You don't like Valentine's Day because you might be forced to show some affection or that if might remind you of something wonderful? Valentine's Day is day to celebrate love. There is such a thing as romanticism, and if we were all like you, it would probably be dead. Has the radiation from excessive staring at the porn on your monitor hardened your heart so much that you cannot feel it?

Now, that's a bit harsh, don't you think? I don't think that I ever actually attack romance and love in this article. I simply am taking issue with the way in which Valentine's Day itself is presented and celebrated in popular culture. As another comment pointed out, it's a lot like saying that you dislike Christmas because of all of the commercialization, and resolving to hand-make all of your gifts (or even avoid gift exchanging at all). It doesn't say anything at all about your opinions on Christianity. Similarly, saying that I don't like Valentine's Day doesn't mean that I am against love and romance. It just means that I have a problem with the way in which the holiday is presented. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anybody can go have a one night stand of go rent a porn movie, but what does it add to you? What does it make your ability to love? It doesn't; it detracts and makes you cold.

Mmmm... I'd probably agree that going out and renting a porn movie and watching it alone at home probably won't do a whole lot for you, or at least won't do anything for you that masturbating without porn wouldn't do. One night stands aren't a substitute for someone who wants a relationship, but I think that there are certainly cases where a person's life can be brightened by a single night with someone else. And I haven't heard about any of the people who have come to my T&P parties suffering negative effects on their sex lives--well, at least, not after the hangovers and "after watching that, I never want to have sex again" feelings wear off. :)

Yes, and study after study shows that you are more likely to either rape somebody or be calloused to rape.

You're not going to throw the Meese Commission at me, are you? I'd thought that it had been thoroughly discredited by now. Next thing you know somebody's going to start suggesting that we bring back trickle-down economics. (What? They have? You're joking, right?)

That having been said, I'll restate my recommendation against any porn that goes into the nonconsensual area. I mean, there are definitely some issues there that are best avoided.

My suggestion might be more radical, but you will come out of it a better person. You will feel and commune deeply with other humans. You will feel so good you will almost cry at times. Go get some good ecstacy. Find some good music. Get some fruit, massage toys, scented candles, incense, and lighting effects (a computer with projector can do well). Everybody gather together, turn down the lights, start the lighting and music, and get rolling. You will feel empathy towards others, not a callousness that pornography brings. The music will be good, the hugs good, the fruit will taste amazing. You can share it from lip to lip with your loved one. You will laugh with each other, be with each other instead of detached, and geniunely feel like you have been at something special.

I have no experience with Ecstacy, and haven't done much research on it, so I can't speak to that part (and besides, others have already). I will agree that getting together with people and sharing a positive experience is a wonderful thing. I happen to think that breaking social taboos can be such an experience, and that doing so with others can lead to a stronger intimacy and bond of friendship among the participants. And, heck, exploring your limits and examining your preconceived notions can also end up making your a better person.

Love and empathy, what a radical idea.

No disagreement there.

-allen



[ Parent ]
Yes, too harsh. (2.00 / 1) (#151)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:05:47 PM EST

Now, that's a bit harsh, don't you think?
Yes, it was too harsh. Sorry for the personal attack. It was a knee-jerk reaction to the traditional "I have Valentine's Day," remarks.

I simply am taking issue with the way in which Valentine's Day itself is presented and celebrated in popular culture. As another comment pointed out, it's a lot like saying that you dislike Christmas because of all of the commercialization, and resolving to hand-make all of your gifts (or even avoid gift exchanging at all).
Saying that you will make your own gifts still follows in the spirit of Christmas. The Valentine's Day equivalent would be making your own evening, card, gift, candy, dinner, or other form of celebration. I think that is a wonderful think to do. However, to those that refuse to exchange gifts on Christmas, but would say that they would willingly do it any other day of the year are being childish. We have these days as an excuse to splurge and go out of your way. Nothing else like Christmas happens any other day of the year and it wouldn't happen if Christmas wasn't so pushed. Attacking the holiday because of the card companies or retailers sounds like it would be a classic ad hom if you personified the retailer. These extra little holidays are there to help us by hopefully remembering how it felt good to give a present to somebody else or treat them special. If you can do it without the reminder, more to you. However, don't attack the reminder because of some silly reason that doesn't really matter. How do all the card, candy, and flower companies affect your relationship? If they truly didn't then you would have no problem celebrating Valentine's day.

To me, this backlash just reminds me of when i was a teenager and always wanted to do the opposite of what was expected of me.

You're not going to throw the Meese Commission at me, are you? I'd thought that it had been thoroughly discredited by now.
No. Not the Meese Commission. The last time these studies surfaced here, best response was saying that the studies were run by Christians, and that the men didn't have a chance to masturbate before the rape sensitivity was tested. Argument one still is an irrelevant ad hom, while argument two seems more than applicable in your scenario. I don't have web references to most of the studies (and I have been promising K5 a story for too long), but in the mean time you can go to Enough is Enough and read their well researched position paper.

Next thing you know somebody's going to start suggesting that we bring back trickle-down economics. (What? They have? You're joking, right?)

yes...

I happen to think that breaking social taboos can be such an experience, and that doing so with others can lead to a stronger intimacy and bond of friendship among the participants.
Yes, and kidnapping or beatting teh tar out of somebody can lead to a stronger bond, too. Just because the goal looks promising, doesn't mean that any method to get there is also promising. Find a good method for a good goal.

"Love and empathy, what a radical idea."
No disagreement there.

Funny, I don't see that. I don't know you can twist watching porn and getting raging drunk to dull the pain of the video can show love or empathy, especiall when alcohol has been shown to caused a detached state to those around you.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
at least we're not arguing ecstacy... (5.00 / 1) (#261)
by akp on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 07:53:53 PM EST

Saying that you will make your own gifts still follows in the spirit of Christmas. The Valentine's Day equivalent would be making your own evening, card, gift, candy, dinner, or other form of celebration. I think that is a wonderful think to do. However, to those that refuse to exchange gifts on Christmas, but would say that they would willingly do it any other day of the year are being childish.

The celebration of Christmas as a quasi-secular, pagan-influenced holiday with decorated trees, parties, and exchanging of gifts, has been decried by followers of some of the more conservative branches of Christianity for centuries. At the same time, charity and fellowship are important parts of Christianity. So I could see someone who, in order to preserve the sanctity of Christmas, would refuse to take on the secular trappings of the day. At the same time I could see said person approving of a day for celebration and gift giving, and thus being willing to do so as long as said say didn't conflict with a religious holiday. I don't see such behavior as being particularly childish... Well, ok, unless I felt like arguing that strict religious beliefs are childish in general, which is not a discussion that needs to get started right now.

These extra little holidays are there to help us by hopefully remembering how it felt good to give a present to somebody else or treat them special. If you can do it without the reminder, more to you. However, don't attack the reminder because of some silly reason that doesn't really matter. How do all the card, candy, and flower companies affect your relationship? If they truly didn't then you would have no problem celebrating Valentine's day.

You have a point here. However, I will ask the same question: if I and my group of friends--or, for that matter, if 25% of the people in the U.S.--decide that we don't want to celebrate Valentine's Day, then how does it affect your relationship? Does it diminish the day at all? If not, then why would you have a problem with people refusing to celebrate it?

To me, this backlash just reminds me of when i was a teenager and always wanted to do the opposite of what was expected of me.

Well, yeah. There is some of that. But there are some good things about such behavior (in moderation, anyway). It keeps you in the practice of questioning social norms, finding out which ones have outlived their usefullness.

...Now, all that having been said, I have a question: How much of your opposition to an anti-Valentine's Day Tequila and Porn party is because it's an anti-Valentine's Day party, and how much because it's a Tequila and Porn party? If I were advocating a party in which single people got together on Valentine's Day and played board games, read, and watched movies, would you think that was ok? If I advocated a Tequila and Porn party not connected with Valentine's Day, would you find that to be acceptable? I'm just looking for some common ground here...

No. Not the Meese Commission. The last time these studies surfaced here, best response was saying that the studies were run by Christians, and that the men didn't have a chance to masturbate before the rape sensitivity was tested. Argument one still is an irrelevant ad hom, while argument two seems more than applicable in your scenario.

Argument two sounds kind of spurious to me, but given that I don't know which studies specifically are being referenced, I can't say that for sure. Argument one, though, actually does have some validity to it. There's a reason that the scientific community requires that studies are independently verifiable before accepting them as valid. It's too easy to make up a study that produces results that fit someone's agenda. One only need look at the tobacco industry's studies showing no link between smoking and lung cancer, or statistics promoted by the diet industry that overstate the link between weight and poor health (and don't get me started on the Body Mass Index), or the difference between environmental studies funded by industry versus those funded by environmental groups (where you can find some agenda-pushing on both sides), to understand why independent verification is important. If only studies that have been funded by Christian groups, which have substantial philosophical investments in certain views of sexuality, show that pornography is harmful, then it can't be said that these studies have been independently verified. It's not to say that they're necessarily untrue because of that fact--it is, as you point out, only an ad hominem objection--but it does show that these studies are not sufficient evidence one way or the other.

I don't have web references to most of the studies (and I have been promising K5 a story for too long), but in the mean time you can go to Enough is Enough and read their well researched position paper

I did take time to check out that site. While I will agree that much research was put into the site, I found it to be a bit one-sided and lacking in perspective. Most of the statistics for pornography consumption by sex offenders did not show the statistics for pornography use by the population at large, for instance. A few of the statements were a bit laughable, such as [a]nother obvious result of children involved in adult sexual activity is the increased rate of pregnancy among teenagers, despite the fact that the teen birth rate in the U.S. fell to an all-time low in 2002. (I will note that that quotation is from a sister site, protectkids.org, and also that teen birth rate probably doesn't take into account terminated pregnancies.)

For a more balanced overview of the research of the effects of pornography, I suggest this paper from a Ph.D. candidate at Penn, which concludes:

From this presentation, it should be clear that just like debates about television violence or the effect of the mass media in general, there are no clear answers. As such, it would seem that the best conclusion one can reach about the effect of pornography is that it "does not serve as a necessary and sufficient cause of audience effects, but rather functions among and through a nexus of mediating factors and influences (Klapper, 1960)."

Next thing you know somebody's going to start suggesting that we bring back trickle-down economics. (What? They have? You're joking, right?)

yes...

This is actually the main reason that I felt that I had to respond here. I'd like to apologize for my comment. I had no idea that you had been defending supply-side economics on another article. I imagine that it seemed really rude of me, chiding you a bit for making personal statements against me and then following up with a snide comment that could have been a personal attack at you. It was really not meant that way, and I'm sorry that I said it.

Yes, and kidnapping or beatting teh tar out of somebody can lead to a stronger bond, too. Just because the goal looks promising, doesn't mean that any method to get there is also promising. Find a good method for a good goal.

You know, as I wrote my statement about breaking social taboos I realized that I might be leaving myself open to such a comment. Let me say instead that breaking social taboos in such a way that nobody is harmed (and I realize that we have different opinions on whether viewing pornography is harmful or not) is an acceptable method for bonding.

-allen



[ Parent ]
quick responses. (none / 0) (#272)
by jjayson on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 04:50:00 PM EST

How much of your opposition to an anti-Valentine's Day Tequila and Porn party is because it's an anti-Valentine's Day party, and how much because it's a Tequila and Porn party? If I were advocating a party in which single people got together on Valentine's Day and played board games, read, and watched movies, would you think that was ok? If I advocated a Tequila and Porn party not connected with Valentine's Day, would you find that to be acceptable? I'm just looking for some common ground here...
A little of both. However, I had a far more visceral response to the porn. I would go to an anti-Valentine's Day party (I would probably go to you T&P party if it was all my friends). I might throw a V-Day party for singles only (not anti-V-Day, but against the norm -- whatever that it). I would never throw a porn party, though. I have thrown quite a few ecstacy parties, tough.

For a more balanced overview of the research of the effects of pornography, I suggest this paper from a Ph.D. candidate at Penn
It is in my bookmarks to read (which could take awhile, I have been collecting pages to read a little too fast). However, I hope he doesn't rely on the old studies too much (he cites a 1960 study in the quote you gave me). The difference in that in 1960 people were looking at stuff that our society has in movies. Only since that latter half of the 80s has mainstream porn gone hardcore.

This is actually the main reason that I felt that I had to respond here. I'd like to apologize for my comment. I had no idea that you had been defending supply-side economics on another article.
Oh, don't trip. I didn't take it as an insult. I found it quite amusing that you would say consider what I had just that day been defending. Hella cool coincidence.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Oh, come on. (5.00 / 6) (#144)
by epepke on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 07:02:10 PM EST

Valentine's day is ridiculous. Porn is ridiculous. Sex is ridiculous. Even love is quite often ridiculous. The very fact that you advocate getting loving feelings out of a pill is ridiculous.

This is the planet of Six Billion Dancing Monkeys. Enjoy it while it lasts.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
HAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#145)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 07:04:13 PM EST

sorry, too funny
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]
I didn't say that. (1.00 / 1) (#153)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:08:27 PM EST

I never said that you will get loving feelings from ecstacy. I said you will feel empathic feelings. An important difference.

_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Too bad they aren't sincere... [n/t] (none / 0) (#166)
by Dephex Twin on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 12:32:29 AM EST




Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
yes you did, just not so directly. (none / 0) (#172)
by amarodeeps on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 02:47:09 AM EST

Love and empathy, what a radical idea.

Last line of your stupid post.

Here's the problems:

1) You think that there is no way to view porn without getting fucked up by it. You are wrong.

2) You think that akp actually was taking porn seriously and you need to correct their attitude or something. You are wrong.

3) You think that akp was not trying to promote some sort of intimacy or empathy. You are wrong.

4) Your post was inherently unfunny, attacked akp personally, and you just fundamentally didn't get the point of this light-hearted story. Lighten the fuck up.

Gawd!



[ Parent ]
What worries me (none / 0) (#271)
by epepke on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 04:50:50 AM EST

2) You think that akp actually was taking porn seriously and you need to correct their attitude or something. You are wrong.

What worries me was that he thought that akp was not taking porn seriously.

Actually, the idea of a party like that isn't so bad, but I'd leave out the E. Chemical enhancements just take away from reality. It isn't totally unlike some Valentine's Day parties I've experienced at swing clubs. The last one I was at, a few years ago, had a ceremony for restating of vows by one couple. It was very sweet and not entirely bloodlessly serious at the same time, a hard concept for those who feel that this should be that and nothing else.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Lovely idea, minus the ecstasy. (5.00 / 1) (#156)
by la princesa on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 10:17:35 PM EST

Being as how one can get that entire intensity and coloured joy without using any chemicals other than the ones already lurking in the brain, it continually irks that there is even an X culture focused on removing inhibitions via drug consumption.  It was lame when the hippies tried to pull the same shit with acid/marijuana/shrooms, and it remains lame with ecstasy, moreso because X only offers an illusory companionship that rots even before the drug begins to fade.  True communion and love of others doesn't need a goddamned external chemical basis.      

___
<qpt> Disprove people? <qpt> What happens when you disprove them? Do they disappear in a flash of logic?
[ Parent ]
It's hard to say no to that. (none / 0) (#160)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 11:29:58 PM EST

It really isn't about effacing inhibitions, it is about a feeling of empathy that isn't normally achievable without assistance. However, it is hard to argue against pursuing this (hopefully permanent) plane of communion without drugged assistance.

I also don't really suggest doing this with people who do not already have a strong friendship with, because of the "illusory companionship" you can develop.

Of course, I am always willing to spend a night of basting my senses with music, fruit, visuals, incense, dancing, and fellowship with others. I'll even supply the DJ (and my House sellection is getting bigger ;)
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]

It's true (none / 0) (#193)
by spiralx on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 04:08:20 PM EST

Ecstasy between friends can deepen already-existing bonds; ecstasy between strangers can often merely create false bonds, although this is not always the case... but it takes more than the pill to generate a true friendship.

Anyway, I'm going to be spending Valentine's Day evening out clubbing with my girlfriend and the hundreds of other people we know at the club, and then back at a friend's place for a more relaxed environment. Not very traditional, but much better than all the Hallmark crap :)

And what's this about your house collection eh?

Please let me reassure those who are leaning towards foreskin envy that your balls will start smelling long before the head of your penis does, foreskin o
[ Parent ]

Love (5.00 / 1) (#169)
by DarkZero on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 12:42:51 AM EST

If you really loved someone, you'd do something special for them on February 10th, or March 14th, or the eighteenth Tuesday of the new year, or any other random day when they aren't expecting it. Any day other than society's designated "Do Something 'Special' For Your Lover Because They're Expecting It" day.

If Valentine's Day has some special personal significance for you, like something just happened to occur in your relationship or your life on February 14th, then fine, have a Happy Valentine's Day. But if you're just doing something special for your lover because it's "Valentine's Day", then you're not expressing your love for them. You're avoiding a fucking argument about why you didn't fulfill your ritualized obligation to them.

Nothing says "You're special, just like everybody else" like a gift or a romantic dinner on the same day that everyone else is getting the same exact thing.

[ Parent ]

Everybody doing everybody (5.00 / 2) (#189)
by januschr on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 02:47:23 PM EST

All people want to do on this site is fuck each other.
Like Warren Beatty puts it in Bulworth:
All we need is a voluntary, free-spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction. Everybody just gotta keep fuckin' everybody 'til they're all the same color.
There you go, and fine movie it is too.

[ Parent ]
actually (none / 0) (#227)
by ph0rk on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 12:49:33 PM EST

>> Yes, and study after study shows that you are more likely to either rape somebody or be calloused to rape. Getting somebody drunk, lowering their inhibitions, then making them callous to rape sounds like a great way to court disaster.

I think you are quite inaccurate.  I believe that, in fact, in many places, Denmark for example, incidences of sex crimes DECREASED  after hard-core porn was available.

choice quite for those too lazy to click:  

I too recoil in pain and incomprehension whenever I hear about the latest psychopath who has shot his mother, machine-gunned his co-workers, raped his daughter, slashed a prostitute. I notice that such men are more likely to have read the Bible than pornography, but I do not hold either script responsible for their actions.

Hardcore porn != snuff or rape pr0n, and aside from the few hentai flicks they said they watched, they did not mention anything in this category.

In addition:  

research by the only female researcher, Professor Kelley of NYSU, appeared to show that male subjects who had been exposed to pornography in which a woman was shown to be suffering reacted faster to aiding a real female victim than did men who had not been exposed to sexual material

.
[ f o r k . s c h i z o i d . c o m ]
[ Parent ]

Not really true (none / 0) (#251)
by John Milton on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 04:49:47 PM EST

I believe that, in fact, in many places, Denmark for example, incidences of sex crimes DECREASED after hard-core porn was available.

This is widely quoted, but it's just not true. The Denmark studies that most liberals use to defend porn chose to not group rape as a severe sex crime. The rate of rape actually INCREASED after hard-core porn was available. There's a reason that the Supreme Court allowed cities to zone sex districts. There is always a marked increase in sexual crimes such as assault in the vicinity of sex districts.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
cough up some data, or shut it. NT (none / 0) (#280)
by ph0rk on Sun Feb 02, 2003 at 07:13:25 PM EST


[ f o r k . s c h i z o i d . c o m ]
[ Parent ]
Sounds like fun, but get a bartender (5.00 / 9) (#6)
by StephenThompson on Tue Jan 28, 2003 at 10:55:05 PM EST

You make the comment that its a good idea for one of the hosts to stay 'sober enough' so people don't drink to much, or drive drunk.  I'm gonna say its more than just a good idea, its the only responsible thing to do.
Since alcohol impairs judgement, really you need a bartender who doesn't drink anything.  It is not wise to have a host try to stay sober 'enough' and keep everyone in line, since he is likely to lose his own judgement as the night progresses.

Thus, get someone to act as bartender.  Put on a tuxedo and dole out the drinks.  Make it part of the ritual.  Many people would be flattered to be given the job.  The bartender shouldn't be a Nazi, but should be given respect and authority over when someone gets water instead of tequila, or gets a cab instead of driving off to someone's death.

teetotaller (5.00 / 2) (#98)
by joshsisk on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 01:38:08 PM EST

Most people have at least one friend that doesn't drink. At our parties, one of them generally volunteers to be bartender (since everyone we know seems to have a bar in their house)... It works well.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]
a movie to watch: (3.00 / 3) (#10)
by zephc on Tue Jan 28, 2003 at 11:07:37 PM EST

the semi-biographical movie Porn 'n' Chicken from Comedy Central Movies.

Decent movie (none / 0) (#17)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 12:01:22 AM EST

I like the girl

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Porn n' Chicken (none / 0) (#127)
by NoLuck on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 04:47:30 PM EST

I come home late at night to watch a little TV. Turn on Comedy Central to find the most unusual movie, Porn 'n' Chicken. I thought it was great. I laughed my ass off. It's one of those movies that you know deep down inside it really sucks and you should change it, but I got so sucked in I just couldn't.
"If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." -Einstein
[ Parent ]
Choose carefully (4.53 / 13) (#16)
by godix on Tue Jan 28, 2003 at 11:53:51 PM EST

One valentine day years ago I was going to give my girlfriend some pink fuzzy handcuffs. Off I go to the only porn store I know of in my town (although I'm sure there's others. It's not the type of thing you call up 411 for though). I stroll in and not seeing any handcuffs around I ask the clerk for a pair. The clerk goes sure; ducks his head under the counter; then comes back up saying 'I'm sorry, we sold our last pair this morning'.

Now the first thought that hits me is 'How many damned perverts are there in this town?' That was shortly followed up with 'besides me I mean.' Then for the rest of the day I couldn't look at anyone without wondering if they were the ones who bought the last pair of handcuffs. This is especially troubling considering I had to ride a bus home, and public transportation is usually full of A) old B) far or C) just plain disgusting people. You definately don't want to think of these people in that way.

So please, for the love of god, be careful buying porn. You may end up thinking really disturbing thoughts about the people you met for days.


Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.

Where's your sense of storytelling? (5.00 / 3) (#58)
by ODiV on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 08:30:26 AM EST

I thought you were going to get something else for your girlfriend on valentine's day and upon exchanging gifts you find out that she got you the pink handcuffs!

The surprise ending works a lot better than this moral lesson (or whatever it's supposed to be).

--
[ odiv.net ]
[ Parent ]
Ohhhh' Henry [n/t] (none / 0) (#88)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 12:23:45 PM EST


---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Unfortunately (none / 0) (#146)
by godix on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 07:06:04 PM EST

Reality doesn't conform to storytelling ideals. I had to work with what I had.


Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.

[ Parent ]
Sounds pretty awkward (5.00 / 7) (#19)
by coljac on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 12:26:24 AM EST

I'm surprised you've had such success with these parties. To me, it sounded like a fun idea for a few seconds. But then the scenario of trying to have a casual fun time with friends while a few feet away there's an image of a huge porn-star dick blowing a load on somebody's face didn't seem, I don't know, feasible. I mean, do you try and be cool and ignore it, or make corny jokes about it? Even if all your friends are young and liberal and laid back - and drunk - there's only so many laughs you could get out of a prolonged ass-fucking scene before it occurs to you you're sitting there with your friends watching somebody get fucked in the ass.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not cool enough to go to one of these parties, because I'd be concentrating too hard on not being too interested in the porn but on the other hand being cool and not looking freaked out, and it would get exhausting.

Fun article though.



---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey

first walk a mile in his shoes (5.00 / 12) (#26)
by shoeboy on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 12:51:24 AM EST

To me, it sounded like a fun idea for a few seconds.

That's because you're sober.

--Shoeboy
No more trolls!
[ Parent ]

Man... (3.66 / 3) (#65)
by anyonymous [35789] on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:37:43 AM EST

If all of your friends male and female don't want to drink, joke, and watch some porn starlett take an oversized load on the face, you need some friends who aren't such tightasses.

It's alright to stare at the screen during the parts you like. That's why the porn is there. I even encourage people to say "stop! Everyone stop and look at that! Rewind that!"

[ Parent ]

Absolutely! (4.66 / 3) (#133)
by ChuckVA on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:45:11 PM EST

The only problem we run into is that we miss half the smut because we've gotten sidetracked into "That looks stupid, but it's actually pretty damned enjoyable!" "Oh, really? How did you manage it without her losing circulation?" duscussions. :)

[ Parent ]
We tried it once... (5.00 / 3) (#80)
by gauntlet on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 11:55:21 AM EST

We were insufficiently drunk, and the only person at the party that I gave two hoots about was really uptight about it, so it didn't work out. There were some good moments, though:
"That's kinda close to being up her ass, don't you think?"
"Uh, that IS up her ass."
"What? But how could she be... Ewww!"

Into Canadian Politics?
[ Parent ]

One thing that works really well (5.00 / 3) (#86)
by Dephex Twin on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 12:18:17 PM EST

I've been part of several porn parties and they are usually not as well planned out as the ones in the article.  This means that sometimes the porn was really bad-- usually because it was too freaky.

The type of porn that seems to have a lot of mass appeal is porn bloopers.  I know they vary in quality, but they can be *really* funny, and most of the time nobody's ever seen one.  My friends and I bought a porn bloopers tape in college, and I can't tell you how many people, men and women, would hear about it and beg me to let them borrow it.

Porn doesn't *need* to be in blooper form to be hilarious, but it can sometimes be less monotonous or hard to take.  It might make a good starter movie for the night or something to put in after a more boring movie or two.

Imagine a close-up of a girl giving a blowjob where she misjudges the distance and accidentally smears the cock against the camera lens and completely smudges the picture.  Or where someone farts during an orgasm.  Or where two lesbians are 69ing on a couch and talking the dirtiest dirty talk and suddenly fall over the back of the couch.  

This is funny stuff!  I highly recommend it.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

it really depends on the makeup of the attendees (5.00 / 2) (#100)
by akp on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 01:41:52 PM EST

If they're wearing enough makeup, then you can't tell who they are!

Lame joke aside, though, I've found that it really helps a lot if you have a mix of attitudes. If there are twenty people at a party and five of them are constantly going "oh my god that's gross" and hiding their faces, and five are being all brazen and making crude jokes and rewinding particularly impressive money shots, then ten people can just sit in the background and concentrate on acting cool and not becoming too interested in the porn. People will be paying so much attention to the ten people who are making a lot of noise (mostly in order to avoid paying attention to the porn) that they won't notice that some of the guests have just been sitting there drinking some and watching the porn. And if anyone does notice, then you can always offer up the rejoinder that drinking and watching porn is exactly what you're supposed to be doing at this party.

As for the prolonged ass fucking scenes, well, that's what the fast forward button is for. They're much more amusing at 4x speed. Actually, that's also what the variety of movies is for--if you're tired of long, drawn out sex scenes, then switch to a movie with plot, or something animated, or a movie parody. And once you're tired of bad acting and bad dialogue, then you can switch back to nothing-but-sex movies. And if you're tired of all of them, then you can always just switch to more tequila.

-allen



[ Parent ]
Hentai (4.20 / 5) (#20)
by j1mmy on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 12:27:24 AM EST

Urotsukidoji: Legend of the Overfiend is the "Gone With the Wind" of hentai, if you will. Give it a try.

Also, great article and great concept. I saw an advert for a similar party once, called Anti-Valentine's. The point was that you show up alone (don't bring any friends), you dress entirely in black, and you get drunk while watching horror flicks. T&P sounds much more fun, though.

Drop the cartoons, experience a real woman (2.25 / 8) (#42)
by NaCh0 on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 03:52:32 AM EST

Comon now...how come you have to ruin a good thing with japanimation? I promise that real woman won't be as scary after you try the first one.

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
[ Parent ]
watch urotsukidoji2 to understand the plot :P [nt] (none / 0) (#56)
by boxed on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 07:57:47 AM EST



[ Parent ]
actually, you can (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by miah on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 11:45:14 AM EST

To get the plot to Urotsukidoji you have to watch about half the first movie. Then stick the whole second one in and watch it. And then watch the last half of the first movie and it makes a bit more sense.

Switching animation styles halfway through a series was very distracting and Omano-Jaku's voice changing in every movie was pretty bad.

The third disk was terrible, and like three hours long of terrible at that. And for the fourth disk you pretty much have to watch the third, which is a shame, to get it. All five hours of 3 and 4 just to get the last five minutes. Better yet, just skip the last two disks...

Religion is not the opiate of the masses. It is the biker grade crystal meth of the masses.
SLAVEWAGE
[ Parent ]

No no no. (4.00 / 1) (#60)
by it certainly is on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 08:47:42 AM EST

For fuck's sake, no. At least, not in the UK. While you can buy or rent Urotsukidoji on VHS or DVD in any video shop here, you'll find the British Video Classification Board have tragically censored ALL the good parts in order to allow normal video stockists to show it. You're left with a particularly bad movie with a lot of very short sex scenes.

You'd either need an imported R1 version, or just download La Blue Girl from Stile (and LBG5: parts 1 2 3 4 5) -- laughably bad anime, the hentai equivalent of "I've come to fix the fridge."

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Gah (none / 0) (#83)
by aonifer on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 12:08:15 PM EST

That was my first anime (not counting Speed Racer or Voltron).  I didn't watch anime for a long time after that.

[ Parent ]
yikes! (none / 0) (#92)
by akp on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 01:04:17 PM EST

I took a quick look around at some reviews of this movie. I think that it might be a bit...intense for a lot of people. Why is it that so much of the more explicit hentai has rape by monster as a central theme? I mean, I suppose that I could see how animated films would have to do something to compensate for the lack of "are they really doing that?!" that most porn has, and thus that they'd go more towards the situational edge than the physical edge. But still...

-allen



[ Parent ]
And like Gone With the Wind... (none / 0) (#97)
by rodgerd on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 01:35:01 PM EST

...it's incredibly fucking tedious.

[ Parent ]
even further away from Hallmark (4.00 / 17) (#22)
by Anonymous 242 on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 12:30:11 AM EST

drinking and watching pornography is about as far away from the traditional Hallmark view of Valentines Day that you can get
How about a prayer service commemorating Saint Valentine of Rome who was martyred in the second century? If you are lucky enough to be in Rome, you can venerate his relics in the Church of Saint Praxedes.

Personally... (none / 0) (#62)
by Kintanon on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:02:14 AM EST

I prefer to line up five or six colonials and shoot them for my Valentines day celebration. It has a more modern feel to it.

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

Are you from Chigago? (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by IslandApe on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:51:14 PM EST

And where were you in 1929?


O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion;
[ Parent ]
How about not (1.50 / 2) (#68)
by czth on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:52:29 AM EST

How about a prayer service commemorating Saint Valentine of Rome who was martyred in the second century? If you are lucky enough to be in Rome, you can venerate his relics in the Church of Saint Praxedes.

You absolute twit. Idol worship and veneration of so-called relics is probably worse than this whole T&P crap.

But then again, the Roman Catholic church did have a lot of Christians killed[1] so they could worship their idols, so I suppose you chaps have earned it.

[1] Broadbent, E. H. The Pilgrim Church, Gospel Folio Press, 1999 (reprint of 1931 edition), pp. 68-77, etc.

czth

[ Parent ]

uh (none / 0) (#69)
by adequate nathan on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 10:05:35 AM EST

Please stop trolling.

kthx

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

In case you haven't noticed (none / 0) (#76)
by czth on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 11:11:08 AM EST

Virtually all of my posts are sincere.

Besides, what part of denouncing that cultist lee and documenting my affirmations counts as trolling?

czth

[ Parent ]

Bad thinking (none / 0) (#149)
by Verax on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 08:15:37 PM EST

Arguably, a prayer service commemerating Saint Valentine is further from current Hallmark valentines than t&p is from current Hallmark valentines. So that is a reasonable thing to say.

So where does the "twit" remark come from?

Idol worship may be equally bad as t&p, because t&p can be understood as a form of idol worship, at least in a figurative sense. None the less, the suggestion was not to worship idols, so why do you mention it?

Veneration of relics is entirely different from idol worship. Honoring those who honor God is quite different from worshipping something that is not God in place of God.

Veneration of relics is not everyone's cup of tea (even some Catholics in full communion with the Catholic Church.) That does not change the degree of dissimilarity between the suggestion and today's Hallmark valentine.

Lastly, I would add that some people within the Catholic Church have behaved very badly throughout history, right up through the present day. However the same can be said of some people belonging to any very large group. This does not change the teaching of the Catholic Church, and does not mean that that sort of behaviour is consistent with Church teaching. Can you say specifically what your reference refers to? Your accusation is quite vague; care to make it more concrete?



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Unholy mother of infallible heretics (none / 0) (#177)
by czth on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 09:49:45 AM EST

The "twit" remark comes from Catholics and all the heresy that they stand for (e.g. Trent, to just exmaine one council, which has been confirmed by recent popes).

Veneration of relics is not everyone's cup of tea (even some Catholics in full communion with the Catholic Church.)

Not so full communion, I don't think: Trent XXV - they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of saints; or, that these, and other sacred monuments, are uselessly honoured by the faithful; and that the places dedicated to the memories of the Saints are vainly visited for the purpose of obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and doth now also condemn them.

Can you say specifically what your reference refers to? Your accusation is quite vague; care to make it more concrete?

My reference is to a book (see original posting) which details the history of the New Testament church, through various trials and persecutions, mostly from the Roman Catholic church, and far more than just the "holy office of the Inquisition."

You might also gainfully read Dave Hunt's A Woman Rides the Beast, some sample chapters of which are available here.

czth

[ Parent ]

While you're reading (none / 0) (#212)
by Anonymous 242 on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 12:02:11 AM EST

Read On the Holy Images by John of Damascus. Pay special attention to Book III and the subsection entitled "What we find worshipped in Scripture."

[ Parent ]
Many errors - part I (none / 0) (#218)
by czth on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 10:38:39 AM EST

Part I debunked:

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. (Exodus 34:14).

In order to try to justify worship of images he tries to give examples of times when anything other than God was properly worshipped (properly as opposed to e.g. pagan idol worship which is mentioned in the Bible but not as a good example to follow). But Abraham never worshipped the sons of Emmor (OT, Heth, Genesis 23); the text says he "bowed down" (v7) before them which could have been for a number of reasons - custom, respect, thanks for their kindness. He certainly did not worship them; quite the opposite, it was they that called him a "mighty prince" among them (v6). Neither did Jacob worship Esau or Pharaoh (Genesis 33); he also bowed, to show respectful fear to Esau (to appease him, in the hopes that Esau wouldn't kill him). The reason that Joshua (Joshua 5:14) worshipped an angel was that this angel was none other than Christ Himself, a so-called "theophany" (who else could be called the "captain of the host of the Lord" and why else would the ground be holy? (cp. Moses and the burning bush); cp. also 6:2, probably the same "angel" speaking). Likewise Joseph's brothers fell down before him, they did not worship him. In the same paragraph he seeks to make the sun and nature an image of God (the trinity), which is wrongheaded; the same passage he quotes (Romans 1:20) cautions against making images, describing same as "changing the glory of the incorruptible God into an image." (v.23). Bringing in Mariology in the next paragraph in making the totally unfounded assertions that the Ark represents Mary doesn't help his case either. There is also the case of his fallacy of the excluded middle, in which he tries to present only two alternatives: worship images, or destroy anything representing past history. Sorry, the missing third is to worship God alone and to let images be merely images, representative, but not worthy of worship. Also the idea of "types of worship" is definitely unsupported in scripture; nowhere is man told to worship anything but God: not images, not angels, not spirits.

The images of the cherubim were not to be worshipped; that's another red herring. Was Jesus merely an image of God? No, he was verily God, and thus to be worshipped. Would it have been wrong to take a photograph of the Lord while He walked the earth, or to paint a picture? No, but to worship it would be wrong. To view it as an image and because of it, remember the Lord, is not wrong (the bread and the wine are given for remembrance - "this do in remembrance of Me" - but are not to be worshipped, they are only symbols).

Hm, skipping a lot of ranting and raving and assumptions without fact... testimony of so-called saints which are uninspired and just as likely to be wrong as some guy off the street... it seems we're done here.

To be continued in the debunking of parts 2 and 3 if they contain anything substantially different. And I still highly recommend you read A Woman Rides the Beast; it might set you on the right path, to avoid the sophistry and worldliness of your corrupt pagan organization and to return to the rudiments of faith. May the Lord guide you to the truth.

czth

[ Parent ]

You and I and St. John Damascene agree. (none / 0) (#254)
by Verax on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 05:19:40 PM EST

From Part I:

Worship is the symbol of veneration and of honour. Let us understand that there are different degrees of worship. First of all the worship of latreia, which we show to God, who alone by nature is worthy of worship. When, for the sake of God who is worshipful by nature, we honour His saints and servants, as Josue and Daniel worshipped an angel, and David His holy places, when be says, "Let us go to the place where His feet have stood." (Ps. 132.7) Again, in His tabernacles, as when all the people of Israel adored in the tent, and standing round the temple in Jerusalem, fixing their gaze upon it from all sides, and worshipping from that day to this, or in the rulers established by Him, as Jacob rendered homage to Esau, his elder brother, (Gen. 33.3) and to Pharaoh, the [14] divinely established ruler. (Gen. 47.7) Joseph was worshipped by his brothers. (Gen. 50.18) I am aware that worship was based on honour, as in the case of Abraham and the sons of Emmor. (Gen. 23.7) Either, then, do away with worship, or receive it altogether according to its proper measure.

I think the problem here is the word "worship". Looking in Random House Webster's unabridged dictionary, I see that worship has 10 definitions, many of which do not mean the kind of worship that you and I and St. John Damascene believe is due to God alone. To make language more precise, he explains that these other senses of the word worship are simply honor and veneration. Apparently, at that time, the kind of honor due to our mother and father could have been called "worship," although St John is careful to make the distinction that that use of the word "worship" is different from the word "worship" for worshipping God. You wouldn't suggest that honoring our mother and father is a commandment to break the first commandment, would you?

The Catholic church honors Mary and the Saints, and statues and images, but this is just honor. These are not God, and are not to be worshipped/adored as if they were Gods, because they are not.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
The problem of Maryolatry (none / 0) (#277)
by czth on Sun Feb 02, 2003 at 02:35:55 AM EST

I think the problem here is the word "worship". Looking in Random House Webster's unabridged dictionary, I see that worship has 10 definitions....

Not really, we're looking at original languages which are usually more precise than English (probably one of the reasons God chose to use them). Plus see my other response.

The Catholic church honors Mary and the Saints, and statues and images, but this is just honor. These are not God, and are not to be worshipped/adored as if they were Gods, because they are not.

Either (1) you're intentionally lying (you're evil) or (2) you've been deceived (you're not that bright). I would hope it's the latter.

Honour is fine, if that's as far is it goes. But praying to Mary (and saints) - as if they are omniscient (which they would need to be to hear prayers throughout the world) and have power to answer them (i.e., God's power), is where the error lies. If you don't believe your organization advocates that, I'd be happy to show you some quotes from their councils. Maryolatry takes away from the Son's completed work (so does your organization's fabrications about the so-called "unbloody sacrifice of the mass" and transubstantiation, but I digress), by suggesting that He either doesn't have the power or will to save all that come, as is written.

czth

[ Parent ]

What it means to pray to a Saint. (none / 0) (#302)
by Verax on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 07:48:57 PM EST

I said:

The Catholic church honors Mary and the Saints, and statues and images, but this is just honor. These are not God, and are not to be worshipped/adored as if they were Gods, because they are not.

You said:
Either (1) you're intentionally lying (you're evil) or (2) you've been deceived (you're not that bright). I would hope it's the latter.

I assure you that I'm not intentionally lying. It is easier to be decieved these days than we'd like to admit, so it pays to be on guard for creeping error. And, lastly, I have not claimed to be all that bright.

Honour is fine, if that's as far is it goes. But praying to Mary (and saints) - as if they are omniscient (which they would need to be to hear prayers throughout the world) and have power to answer them (i.e., God's power), is where the error lies.

In the bible, there are many references to people asking for prayers on their behalf, for intercession. Why should those souls that are in the full presence of God be any less willing or able to pray on behalf of those of us who live on earth? Why would God want those in his full presence to stop? What is your understanding of the Communion of Saints? Isn't "all will be revealed" supposed to be brought about by God's power? Couldn't He, who hears all prayers, pass them along to those in heaven with him? I don't claim to know how it works, but it does not seem unreasonable to me to think that it could be possible.

It is the Catholic Church's teaching is that the Saints themselves do not have the power to do anything, because, apart from God, nobody can do anything. The Saints don't have any power to use; instead, they pray to God on our behalf, and it is God who brings things about.

We believe this is especially true of the Virgin Mary; that Jesus loves her as his mother and wishes to honor her by acting on her intercession. So we don't see her as divine at all, and we don't think that she has any power of her own. You seem to be more familiar with the bible than I am, perhaps you are familiar with an analogous situation with King solomon paying attention to petitions that came to him through his mother. There was no objection in Israel to petitioning the mother of the king. Again it wasn't her authority, but his.

If you don't believe your organization advocates that, I'd be happy to show you some quotes from their councils.

That does not sound like the teaching of the Catholic Church, so please do; I'm willing to look.

Maryolatry takes away from the Son's completed work (so does your organization's fabrications about the so-called "unbloody sacrifice of the mass" and transubstantiation, but I digress), by suggesting that He either doesn't have the power or will to save all that come, as is written.

If, by "maryolatry", you mean to worship Mary as if she were divine, then we are already in agreement. The Catholic Church teaches that she is not divine, and to worship her as if she were God is a mortal sin. No argument there.

We believe that He does have the power and will to save everyone from any point in time. I don't see how presenting petitions to Mary so that she can present them to Him takes away from that.

I'm not sure that I follow your digression either. How does the mass suggest that Jesus is either unwilling or unable to save us?



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
God is no respecter of persons (none / 0) (#319)
by czth on Sat Feb 08, 2003 at 06:29:28 PM EST

In the bible, there are many references to people asking for prayers on their behalf, for intercession. Why should those souls that are in the full presence of God be any less willing or able to pray on behalf of those of us who live on earth? Why would God want those in his full presence to stop?

Red herrings. You can't assume that just because God hears prayer on earth and that people on earth ask others to pray for them that prayers get forwarded to dead people unless it's stated explicitly - which it's not. It's a leap of illogic, of blind (i.e. without evidence or doctrine) faith which we are never asked to make.

What is your understanding of the Communion of Saints?

Never heard of it. Who invented it?

Isn't "all will be revealed" supposed to be brought about by God's power? Couldn't He, who hears all prayers, pass them along to those in heaven with him?

Couldn't He, who can do all things, give me a billion dollars? Sure. Has he chosen to? No. God does not do all things that He can do. Another red herring. Maybe it is not unreasonable, but a lot of reasonable things are false and fortunately God doesn't do everything that man thinks is a neat idea.

The Saints don't have any power to use; instead, they pray to God on our behalf, and it is God who brings things about.

Still nothing more than pure supposition. It is God, not the Roman Catholic church, who decides how He will behave. Furthermore, wherever do you get the notion that God listens to one believer over another, especially when He did not grant His own Son's prayer that His "cup" (the cross) be removed.

We believe this is especially true of the Virgin Mary; that Jesus loves her as his mother and wishes to honor her by acting on her intercession.

Same problem, particularly in light of this example - where Jesus refuses to see his mother and brethren and says that those around him - his disciples - were his mother and brethren. God is not a human king, so human analogies don't work: God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34).

That [Maryolatry] does not sound like the teaching of the Catholic Church, so please do; I'm willing to look.

Alright, I'll be quoting from A Woman Rides the Beast which in turn quotes from various Catholic sources, in a parallel reply.

I'm not sure that I follow your digression either. How does the mass suggest that Jesus is either unwilling or unable to save us?

The idea of the mass is that Christ is sacrificed again (and again, and again, ...). You might want to read Hebrews 10:10 which states that we are sanctified by the offering of Christ once, not repeatedly; the following verses are also germane.

czth

[ Parent ]

Prayer to the Saints, and the Church's authority. (none / 0) (#324)
by Verax on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 11:13:43 PM EST

I said: In the bible, there are many references to people asking for prayers on their behalf, for intercession. Why should those souls that are in the full presence of God be any less willing or able to pray on behalf of those of us who live on earth? Why would God want those in his full presence to stop?

You said: You can't assume that just because God hears prayer on earth and that people on earth ask others to pray for them that prayers get forwarded to dead people unless it's stated explicitly - which it's not.

I never assumed that. In fact, I said, "I don't claim to know how it works..."

There are several with that. First, one could apply your own argument in the other direction: The bible does not explicitly say that those prayers aren't forwarded either. So therefore they are. Of course the real problem with your argument is that it contradicts itself. You argue that what isn't explicitly stated can't be assumed, however, you assume that without it explicitly being stated.

The Early Christian Church (which later changed it's name to Catholic) explained the teachings of Christ to people after Christ ascended into heaven. There was no bible until significantly later. The Catholic Church put the bible together. The Catholic Church made the decisions about what belongs in there and what does not. The Catholic Church has had the authority all along to aid in interpretation of the bible. The Catholic Church says that Saints hear our prayers without (to my knowledge) saying exactly how that comes about. The Catholic Church does not claim that Saints are all-knowing. The Catholic Church does not say that Saints have their own power. The Catholic Church teaches that the Saints petition God on our behalf, and that it is God who brings miracles about, if He so chooses. It is the Catholic Church who has had the authority to say these things all along.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Your organization has no authority (none / 0) (#329)
by czth on Thu Feb 13, 2003 at 10:01:38 AM EST

There are several with that. First, one could apply your own argument in the other direction: The bible does not explicitly say that those prayers aren't forwarded either. So therefore they are. Of course the real problem with your argument is that it contradicts itself. You argue that what isn't explicitly stated can't be assumed, however, you assume that without it explicitly being stated.

The burdern of proof is upon the affirmative side, not the negative. If you think about it for a moment you should be able to see why this is so.

he Early Christian Church (which later changed it's name to Catholic)

Not quite. The early Christian church would have had nothing to do with the Roman Catholic church in any form.

The Catholic Church put the bible together. The Catholic Church made the decisions about what belongs in there and what does not.

Not true either. Certainly not for the Old Testament, and it was not until AD 397 that any sort of council made any decision about the canon of scripture (third council of Cathage)[1]; it's ridiculous to assume that nobody used the Bible before then. Furthermore, the synod of Antioch and councils of Nicea and Laodicea in AD 266, 325, and 363 respectively all refer to a known canon of scripture, and "the gospels and epistles were circulating in Asia, Syria , and Alexandria... by about [AD] 100. In Polycarp's short letter there is an astonishing amount of direct and indirect quotations from the New Testament . . . the Christian scriptures were quoted so familiarly as to suggest they had been in regular use for a long time."

Myth of the Roman church establishing the scriptural canon debunked.

[1] Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1943), p. 26.

[2] Historian W. H. C. Frend.

The Catholic Church has had the authority all along to aid in interpretation of the [B]ible.

When I was in highschool they taught us this technique called 'point, proof, comment.' It's really a good idea, try it. Hint: why do you think the Roman Catholic church had such authority? Consider 2 Peter 1:20 and Acts 17:11.

The Catholic Church says that Saints hear our prayers without (to my knowledge) saying exactly how that comes about.

And without any scriptural basis.

It is the Catholic Church who has had the authority to say these things all along.

No, it isn't - it is God. Why do you think your organization has any authority at all? It doesn't, except maybe to govern those that choose to submit to it.

czth

[ Parent ]

Review of the argument, clarification of beliefs (none / 0) (#325)
by Verax on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 11:36:11 PM EST

I said:Isn't "all will be revealed" supposed to be brought about by God's power? Couldn't He, who hears all prayers, pass them along to those in heaven with him?

You said:Couldn't He, who can do all things, give me a billion dollars? Sure. Has he chosen to? No. God does not do all things that He can do. Another red herring. Maybe it is not unreasonable, but a lot of reasonable things are false and fortunately God doesn't do everything that man thinks is a neat idea [...]

You asserted that it is not possible for Saints to hear our prayer because that would require them to be omniscient, and that it is not possible for the Saints to grant our wishes because they do not have God's power. I explained that the Catholic Church does not teach that Saints are omniscient. I explained that the Catholic Church does that the Saints do not have their own power, but rather that they petition God on our behalf. I then argue that it's not impossible for Saints to hear prayer for various reasons. Although I do not prove that Saints can hear prayer, I do show that you have not proved that they don't. No herrings of any color there.

A lot of reasonable things are also true. Again, I'm not arguing that Saints do hear prayers; I'm only pointing out that you have not proved your claim that they can't hear prayers.

[...] and fortunately God doesn't do everything that man thinks is a neat idea

Amen to that!

I said: The Saints don't have any power to use; instead, they pray to God on our behalf, and it is God who brings things about.

You said: Still nothing more than pure supposition. It is God, not the Roman Catholic church, who decides how He will behave.

The Catholic Church does not claim to be the boss of God. Of course He decides His own behavior. What makes you think that we think otherwise?

Furthermore, wherever do you get the notion that God listens to one believer over another, especially when He did not grant His own Son's prayer that His "cup" (the cross) be removed.

Where did you get the notion that I have the notion that God listens to one believer over another? The Catholic Church teaches that God hears all prayers, and answers them; sometimes the answer is "no", but they do all get answered. That's what I believe.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
The Sacrifice of the Mass (none / 0) (#326)
by Verax on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 11:50:04 PM EST

I asked: How does the mass suggest that Jesus is either unwilling or unable to save us?

You said: The idea of the mass is that Christ is sacrificed again (and again, and again, ...). You might want to read Hebrews 10:10 which states that we are sanctified by the offering of Christ once, not repeatedly; the following verses are also germane.

Oddly enough, that Christ was sacrificed once, for all, is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. In the mass, it is Christ's original sacrifice that is made present again, not repeated.

It seems to me that someone very hateful of Catholics is feeding you information about us that isn't even true. Assorted Catholics have behaved very badly at various times in history. Examining and acknowledging that behavior honestly and in the spirit of finding truch, can be productive and enlightening, and hopefully reduce the chances of having it repeated. But to hate Catholics simply because they are Catholics, especially because of arguments that aren't even true? The idea that Christ is sacrificed again (and again, and again, ...) is grossly not Catholic. I'm not asking you to dismiss your source, but after something as abominably incorrect as that, please at least take your source's claims with a grain of salt.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
This do in remembrance of Me (none / 0) (#330)
by czth on Fri Feb 14, 2003 at 09:55:50 AM EST

This do in remembrance of me . . . . For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do show the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:24, 26)

Oddly enough, that Christ was sacrificed once, for all, is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. In the mass, it is Christ's original sacrifice that is made present again, not repeated.

And just what exactly does "made present" mean? Are you trying to pretend it's just a remembrance, no more than that? Would that it were so, for there would be nothing wrong with that. But the whole myth of transubstantiation - gah. Deception and evil, to make people thing your robéd priests actually have some sort of magical power, to hold people in thrall.

It seems to me that someone very hateful of Catholics is feeding you information about us that isn't even true.

More likely you're just a bad Catholic. Which probably makes you a better person (I hope).

The idea that Christ is sacrificed again (and again, and again, ...) is grossly not Catholic.

So, no Roman Catholic sources call it "the sacrifice of the mass" (Vatican II[1]) and do not believe that in it "the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated"[2] or that it is "the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, who is really and substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine in order to offer himself in the sacrifice of the Mass"[3]? They don't worship the wafer believed to be magically transformed into Christ (also Vatican II)? That would be excellent news.

[1] Austin Flannery, O. P. gen. ed., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, rev. ed. (Costello Publishing, 1988), vol. 1, pp. 101, 104, 107, 109, 249.

[2] The new universal Catechism of the Catholic Church (The Wanderer Press, 1994), p. 285, para. 864.

[3] James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel, eds., The Code of Canon Law (Paulist Press, 1985), canon 897.

czth

[ Parent ]

Roman Catholic Maryolatry (none / 0) (#320)
by czth on Sat Feb 08, 2003 at 07:17:26 PM EST

Quotes are from A Woman Rides the Beast by Dave Hunt (Harvest House, 1994) which quotes from various Roman Catholic sources which will be identified invidiually. "Recognized" etc. means by the Vatican.

"As Catholics, we have Mary, and that Mom of ours, Queen of Paradise, is praying for us till she sees us in glory." (Fr. Tom Forrest, Evangelization 2000, out of the Vatican). Point: "Queen of Paradise"? Says who?

"There is no one, O most holy Mary . . . who can be saved or redeemed but through thee . . . ." (St. Germanus, quoted in The Glories of Mary by St. Alphonsus de Liguori (Redemption Fathers, 1931), p. 171; De Liguori was a cardinal and a saint and recognized as authoritative concerning Mary). Point: salvation requires Mary? Not in my Bible.

"Sinners receive pardon by . . . Mary alone. He falls and is lost who has not recourse to Mary. Mary is called . . . the gate of heaven because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her. The way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary . . . the salvation of all depends on their being favored (sic.) and protected by Mary. He who is protected by Mary will be saved; he who is not will be lost . . . our salvation depends on thee . . . . God will not save us without the intercession of Mary . . . who would receive any grace were it not for thee, O Mother of God . . . ?" (Ibid., pp. 82-3, 94, 160, 167-70). Point: fairly obvious.

Any claim to not praying to saints is spurious, with so many shrines to Mary and prayers to Mary in the Catholic church.

"Mary of the New Advent, we implore your protection on the preparations that will now begin for the next meeting [World Youth Day]. Mary, full of grace, we entrust the next World Youth Day to you. Mary, assumed into heaven [also a false teaching - cz], we entrust the young people of the world . . . the whole world to you." (Pope John Paul II, close of Sunday Mass, Denver, CO, August 1993, as quoted in the NRI Trumpet, October 1993, p. 14). Point: this is a little more than just asking Mary to pray for you - this is an exaltation to omnipotence, an entrusting of the care of the whole world to this Catholic idea of Mary which is more like a pagan goddess.

In the most popular Catholic prayer, the Rosary, Mary is called "Queen of heaven" and invoked. Hint: look for "queen of heaven" in scripture (it occurs about five times; try the search at Blue Letter Bible's site). Another includes "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, I give you my heart and my soul" - why not Jesus alone, for He alone of those is God.

"Devotion to Mary was ingrained in the Pope [John Paul II] in his Polish homeland, where over the centuries the [black] Madonna has been hailed for turning back troops of the Muslim Turks, Swedish Lutherans, and, in 1920, Soviet Bolsheviks . . . ." (Time, December 30, 1991, p. 64). Point: what sort of supersitions are these?

Mary's immaculate conception wasn't proposed until 1894 (Pope Pius IX, as an "infallability trial balloon"); the assumption to heaven not until 1950 (Pius XII).

"The Rosary is a means of salvation, because a true child of Mary is never lost and one who says the Rosary daily is truly Mary's child . . . . Mary is our all-powerful Advocate and she can obtain from the Heart of the Divine Son whatever is good for her children . . . . No one is beyond redemption if he but turns to Mary Immaculate." (Catholic tract "The Rosary, Your Key to Heaven"). Point: child of Mary? Not exactly a Biblical idea. She can obtain whatever she wants?

Catholic translations of Genesis 3:15 say "she [the woman] shall bruise thy [the serpent's] head" (rather than "he" as written); the "she" is interpreted as Mary (Ibid.) Point: It is Christ that is victorious over sin and Satan (1 Corinthians 15, etc.), not Mary.

Plus of course many, many unsubstantiated stories of Mary appearing at shrines and doing this, that and the other thing to help people out. But all this Maryolatry does serve to explain why John saw a woman riding the beast of Revelation 17 quite well.

czth

[ Parent ]

Also, please address me St. Czth Memphene (none / 0) (#278)
by czth on Sun Feb 02, 2003 at 02:46:28 AM EST

Since all believers are saints ("to be" is inserted and not in the original Greek). It's only fair, if your John, who probably wasn't even a Christian, gets referred to that way.

Thanks.

St. Czth, Memphene

[ Parent ]

The difference between saint and Saint. (none / 0) (#303)
by Verax on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 08:08:29 PM EST

Since all believers are saints ("to be" is inserted and not in the original Greek).

If the bible that you link to is not a correct translation, then why use it?

The early Church did refer to people as saints in a more common way. But since then, those who have been recognized for practicing heroic virtue are called "Saint" with a capital S.

If you want to refer to yourself as saint Czth, I've got no problem with that. As for Saints, some of them are never recognized by the Church, but it's not right to insist that someone is a Saint until the Catholic Church has completed the formal processes of Beatification and Cannonization. You'll have to have been dead for a while before they can open your case for evaluation.

It's only fair, if your John, who probably wasn't even a Christian, gets referred to that way.

Just for the record, what is your notion of "Christian?"



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
I declare myself Pope Czth I (none / 0) (#321)
by czth on Sat Feb 08, 2003 at 07:25:49 PM EST

Since all believers are saints ("to be" is inserted and not in the original Greek).

If the bible that you link to is not a correct translation, then why use it?

Because it's the best one I know of (with the possible exception of the NASB, which I don't have), is well known, and I know where the mistakes are, and can check it against my Greek New Testament.

The early Church did refer to people as saints in a more common way. But since then, those who have been recognized for practicing heroic virtue are called "Saint" with a capital S.

So what? I recognize myself as being a saint, with any capitalization that I like. I have as much authority to do that as anyone. And neither my nor your organization's declaration has any more spiritual weight than Wal-Mart declaring someone Employee of the Month.

It's only fair, if your John, who probably wasn't even a Christian, gets referred to that way.

Just for the record, what is your notion of "Christian?"

Someone that has trusted Christ as saviour. That's it. No complications. No requirements for endorsement by any organization of men.

czth

[ Parent ]

What does it mean to be Christian? (none / 0) (#322)
by Verax on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 12:21:44 AM EST

I said:Just for the record, what is your notion of "Christian?"

You said:Someone that has trusted Christ as saviour. That's it. No complications.

Your link points to "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. "

So, anyone who has trusted Christ as savior will be saved? No complications?

Then what do you make of Mat 7:21?

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Perhaps we're supposed to do more than just trust. Perhaps we're supposed to imitate Christ and do the will of His Father. Perhaps being Christian involves behaving in a way that people can recognize the Holy Spirit within us. Although the Catholic Church teaches that non Catholics can get to heaven as well, I still think that more is required of all of us than just "trust".

The Catholic Church does not teach that protestant Christians can't get to heaven. Even so, think: Jesus started a Church, describe it as his bride, and said that not even the gates of hell shall pevail against it, and told Peter that he was the rock upon which this Church would be built. Why would Jesus then abandon his bride, allow her teachings to fall into error, and just move on to a bunch of other chuches instead? I don't think he would. That would make Him unfaithful to his marriag, a liar, and an adulterer. I wouldn't want to be the one accusing Him of that. (Even with trusting Him as Savior.)



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
MYSTERY, BABYLON... MOTHER OF HARLOTS (none / 0) (#323)
by czth on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 01:29:03 PM EST

So, anyone who has trusted Christ as savior will be saved? No complications?

Then what do you make of Mat 7:21?

Matthew 7:21 is clearly talking about those who aren't saved, and thus have never trusted, but call out "Lord, Lord" when they die, hoping to enter heaven because of personal merit - works, belonging to a church, etc. - when all that is, as Isaiah says, as filthy rags.

Perhaps we're supposed to do more than just trust. Perhaps we're supposed to imitate Christ and do the will of His Father. Perhaps being Christian involves behaving in a way that people can recognize the Holy Spirit within us.

Of course we're supposed to do more than just trust, but for salvation, that's it, just - yes - just trust, repent, believe (but not a mere mental assent, as even demons acknowledge Him in that way). Salvation will be followed by works (as James says, "faith without works is dead" and the writer to the Hebrews is persuaded of "better things, and things that accompany salvation" (Hebrews 6:9) of the believers to which he writes). Consider even the verses preceding the one that you quoted:

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Although the Catholic Church teaches that non Catholics can get to heaven as well, I still think that more is required of all of us than just "trust".

No, in fact it doesn't; it seems you need to do some reading. At Trent, anathemas were pronounced on anyone (a) saying that there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic organization; (b) saying that baptism is not required for salvation; or (c) saying that "sacramental confession" is not required for salvation. Seems you need to go read up on what your church really teaches. The book A Woman Rides the Beast might be a good place to start.

Even so, think: Jesus started a Church, describe[d] it as his bride, and said that not even the gates of hell shall pevail against it, and told Peter that he was the rock upon which this Church would be built.

WRONG (unless by 'he' you mean Jesus)! Told Peter that Jesus was the rock on which the church would be built. Why would God build a church on a fallible man?

Why would Jesus then abandon his bride, allow her teachings to fall into error, and just move on to a bunch of other chuches instead?

False assumption: that the Catholic church is that bride. It is not. The bride is composed of all Christians. The Catholic church is better described as "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" (Revelation 17:5).

czth

[ Parent ]

Peter was the rock on which the Church was built. (none / 0) (#327)
by Verax on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 12:20:01 AM EST

I said: Jesus ... told Peter that he was the rock upon which this Church would be built.

You said: WRONG (unless by 'he' you mean Jesus)! Told Peter that Jesus was the rock on which the church would be built. Why would God build a church on a fallible man?

Well, looking at Matthew 16:17-19: (My emphasis added)

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Here we have Jesus giving Simon a new name, "Peter," translated from the greek "Petros" which means "rock". Jesus then tells Simon that he (Simon, now called Peter) is the rock on which He (Jesus) will build His (Jesus's) Church. We also see some authority handed to that church: the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the God's authority to forgive sins. Peter here becomes the first Pope, and it is this church which, during it's early years is referred to as the "Early Christian Church" which put the bible together, deciding, with authority, which books to include and exclude. It is this same church that later decided to call itself Catholic, meaning for everyone. It is the Catholic Church to which Jesus gave the authority. Peter had to have a successor, because he did not live long enough to see Jesus return. This gives rise to the succession of Popes. Likewise, apostolic succession gives us the Catholic Bishops who succeed the original apostles.

As to why God would do things this way? I don't presume to know the workings of God's mind. I would guess that it would be for reasons (whatever they may be) similar to those that had Jesus choose 12 fallible men to be his apostles and spread his message.

Side note on infallability: Many people are highly unhappy with the infallability of the Pope. The thing that many of them don't realize is that the Holy Spirit protects the Pope from all error with respect to teachings on faith and morals. But that's it. The Pope can slip on a banana peel. The Pope can make a mistake doing long division. There have been a few corrupt Popes in the history of the Church, and some of their behavior was really quite bad. But they did not teach anything with respect to faith or morals; the Holy Spirit would not allow that to happen. I know many people still don't like even this diminished scope for infallability. But I would like them to at least be unhappy with what the Church actually teaches, not with what angry anti-catholics claim she teaches.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Christ was the Rock on which the church was built (none / 0) (#331)
by czth on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 06:09:42 PM EST

Well, looking at Matthew 16:17-19: (Your fairly irrelevant bolding of every occurance of 'you' removed):

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Simon gets renamed to Peter (gk. Πετροσ). Christ is the Rock (πετρα, mighty rock; Matthew 21:42, Genesis 49:24, 1 Peter 2:8, 1 Corinthians 10:4).

Jesus then tells Simon that he (Simon, now called Peter) is the rock on which He (Jesus) will build His (Jesus's) Church.

Wrong! Despite all your irrelevant attempts to highlight 'you' in the parent, you still didn't find the Lord stating anywhere that Peter was the rock upon which He would build His church.

We also see some authority handed to that church: the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the God's authority to forgive sins.

There is no church yet. The power of binding and loosing was shared by the other apostles too (John 20:22-23). Peter used the keys twice, to open the kingdom to Israel at Pentecost (Acts 2:38-42) and to the Gentiles in Cornelius' house (Acts 10:34-48). He assumed no authority except that of an Apostle (Acts 15:7) and the final judgement was rendered not by him but by James (Acts 15:19). Similarly, Paul says that he "withstood [Peter] to the face" () "because he was to be blamed."

Furthermore, Peter's first, as you say, "ex cathedra" declaration - certainly it concerned salvation and morals - was to rebuke the Lord (Matthew 17:22), to which the response was "get thee behind Me Satan" (emphasis mine). Hardly infallible.

[ Parent ]

Christ was the Rock on which the church was built (none / 0) (#332)
by czth on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 06:21:37 PM EST

Well, looking at Matthew 16:17-19: (Your fairly irrelevant bolding of every occurance of 'you' removed):

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Simon gets renamed to Peter (gk. Πετροσ). Christ is the Rock (πετρα, mighty rock; Matthew 21:42, Genesis 49:24, 1 Peter 2:8, 1 Corinthians 10:4).

Jesus then tells Simon that he (Simon, now called Peter) is the rock on which He (Jesus) will build His (Jesus's) Church.

Wrong! Despite all your irrelevant attempts to highlight 'you' in the parent, you still didn't find the Lord stating anywhere that Peter was the rock upon which He would build His church.

We also see some authority handed to that church: the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the God's authority to forgive sins.

There is no church yet. The power of binding and loosing was shared by the other apostles too (John 20:22-23). Peter used the keys twice, to open the kingdom to Israel at Pentecost (Acts 2:38-42) and to the Gentiles in Cornelius' house (Acts 10:34-48). He assumed no authority except that of an Apostle (Acts 15:7) and the final judgement was rendered not by him but by James (Acts 15:19). Similarly, Paul says that he "withstood [Peter] to the face" (Galatians 2:11) "because he was to be blamed."

Furthermore, Peter's first, as you say, "ex cathedra" declaration - certainly it concerned salvation and morals - was to rebuke the Lord (Matthew 17:22), to which the response was "get thee behind Me Satan" (emphasis mine). Hardly infallible.

Peter here becomes the first Pope, and it is this church which, during it's early years is referred to as the "Early Christian Church" which put the bible together, deciding, with authority, which books to include and exclude.

The title Pope is certainly unbiblical. He becomes nothing of the kind, and no form of the Roman Catholic church is coincident with the early Christian church which the Roman Church persecuted to the extent and for so long as it ever could in collusion with the secular authorities of the day. The "canon" was referred to in AD 100-300 in councils and letters, well before the Catholic church was founded.

Peter had to have a successor, because he did not live long enough to see Jesus return.

By the same lack of logic, all Christians that have died had to have successors, because they did not live long enough to see Christ return. Boy oh boy do we have a lot of successors running around at this point!

This gives rise to the succession of Popes. Likewise, apostolic succession gives us the Catholic Bishops who succeed the original apostles.

Also wrong. (Perhaps by "succeed" you mean "killed" but that isn't the same thing, anyway, it was probably too early for the Roman Church to be exercising that kind of power.) There is no apostolic succession because their mission was a one-time case, and now the church is perpetuated by any believer so called.

Side note on infallability: Many people are highly unhappy with the infallability of the Pope. The thing that many of them don't realize is that the Holy Spirit protects the Pope from all error with respect to teachings on faith and morals.

Didn't protect Peter from telling Christ not to go to the cross, did it? Didn't protect all those popes who excommunicated each other, did it? Or those that had mistresses, put their own bastards on the papal throne, revoked each others' decrees, sold indulgences for profit, pitted kings against each other, called for the execution of so-called "heretics" (usually using lies of safe conduct to get them to Rome), making up crap like transubstantiation and money-making schemes like purgatory (and indulgences for the dead to get them out), did it?

I know many people still don't like even this diminished scope for infallability. But I would like them to at least be unhappy with what the Church actually teaches, not with what angry anti-catholics claim she teaches.

Bah, most Catholics don't know what their own organization teaches. Usually the anti-Catholics know more about it than anybody.

czth

[ Parent ]

Salvation and the "beast" book. (none / 0) (#328)
by Verax on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 01:00:17 AM EST

I said:Although the Catholic Church teaches that non Catholics can get to heaven as well, I still think that more is required of all of us than just "trust".

You said: No, in fact it doesn't; it seems you need to do some reading. At Trent, anathemas were pronounced on anyone (a) saying that there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic organization; (b) saying that baptism is not required for salvation; or (c) saying that "sacramental confession" is not required for salvation. Seems you need to go read up on what your church really teaches. The book A Woman Rides the Beast might be a good place to start.

Ok, one at a time:

  • (a) This is true for Catholics. And in another sense, it is also true for non-catholics. You see, Catholics and other Christians have a lot of very important stuff in common. To the extent that another Christian church has things in common with the Catholic church, that other church is Catholic. As such, they are not completely outside of the Catholic church, and are therefore not damned. Likewise, even non-Christian religions, if they are faithful to the truth that God engraves in the human heart, are still, to some extent, part of the Catholic church, and therefore not automatically damned either.
  • (b) That's because baptism is required for salvation. The Catholic Church teaches that there are three kinds of baptism, however. (1) By water (which is probably the only kind that most people think of), (2) By blood, which is where someone not previously baptised is killed because of their faith (martyred), and (3) By desire: If someone, through no fault of their own, has not been able to be baptized or has not been educated about the need for baptism, and dies, it is assumed that they would have recognized the need for it and desired it. By virtue of this, they are baptized by desire. But this is only for those who legitimately didn't know, or legitimately couldn't obtain baptism through no fault of their own.
  • (c)This is true for Catholics. The Catholic church does not hold this to be true for other Christians.

The Catholic Church teaches that nobody is to say who goes to hell. That is up to God; we are not the judge, He is.

I looked at the sample chapter of the "rides the beast" book that you keep advocating. Points raised should be examined very closely. I noticed that much of the inflammatory statements do not have references, and many of the references are not in support of the nasty allegations. Furthermore, using language like "The slaughter of innocents who, for conscience' sake, would not yield to her totalitarian demands has so refreshed and exhilarated her that she reels in ecstasy." to refer to the Church is hardly objective.

The book is riddled with unsupported assertions and logical fallacies (If you need examples, just ask). It's really just one massive attempt at smearing the Catholic Church. If the Church really is as bad as all that, why not clean up the arguments, make them precise, and lose the snideness? I suspect that people will be much more receptive to your message if you do. But for now, if that's the best source you have, you might want to look for another one because it's pretty weak.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Do me a favor (4.00 / 1) (#266)
by Anonymous 242 on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 12:57:52 AM EST

Find one Hebrew word that is translated into English as "worship" that isn't applied in the Old Testament to the created (in a positive sense) as well as the creator. Consider words such as shachah that are applied to God and to Joseph's brothers bowing to him in his dream.

Is there a sense that Christians ought to bow before God that we don't bow before created beings? Certainly. Does that mean we ought not bow before created beings? No.

Only once the Old Testament was translated into Greek was there a clear distinction made between types of worship. In Greek latria is offered only to God and dulia is offered to both created beings and the creator. Unfortunately, this clear distinction has not been preserved into English. Some scholars translate latria as adoration and dulia as worship. Some scholars translate latria as worship and dulia as veneration.

Regardless, as Saint John of Damascus points out time and time again, the Holy Scriptures have a tremendous number of examples of God commanding his servants to offer praise and veneration to created beings. Hence, Christians ought to follow suit. If you would have actually read and attempted to understand his writings, you might have picked up on that.

-l

[ Parent ]

Why should I do a self-blinded pagan a favour? (none / 0) (#276)
by czth on Sun Feb 02, 2003 at 02:25:54 AM EST

Find one Hebrew word that is translated into English as "worship" that isn't applied in the Old Testament to the created (in a positive sense) as well as the creator. Consider words such as shachah that are applied to God and to Joseph's brothers bowing to him in his dream.

It seems that shachah is a common term meaning "bow down" and sometimes translated "worship." Of course that doesn't mean it always carries the connotation of worship (it is applied to David/Saul and Ruth/Boaz, for example). So obviously meaning has to be determined by context, and since we're in the OT we see in Deuteronomy 5:9 that either bowing down or serving any "graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth" (v8, emphasis mine) - including humans - is forbidden; in fact, even the making of such images is wrong. And #include <std_OT_disclaimer.h> here, of course; Christians are not Israel, although there are certain applications. But if you can follow the examples you also follow the prescriptions.

Is there a sense that Christians ought to bow before God that we don't bow before created beings? Certainly. Does that mean we ought not bow before created beings? No.

Looks like from the above the answer is "yes", although e.g. in the sense of bowing to a king or queen, it would be acceptable since it is to show respect for the law of the land, which is commanded.

Only once the Old Testament was translated into Greek was there a clear distinction made between types of worship. In Greek latria is offered only to God and dulia is offered to both created beings and the creator. Unfortunately, this clear distinction has not been preserved into English. Some scholars translate latria as adoration and dulia as worship. Some scholars translate latria as worship and dulia as veneration.

That's because unfortunately, the word dulia doesn't occur in the Greek New Testament at all. Latria occurs only a handful of times, and is translated service (albeit in a religious, even Levitical, sense), not worship. Worship (v.) is usually translated from proskuneo, lit. "to kiss towards" althrough there are a few others (the diligent student can look them up); the noun is rarer, usually from sebasma or threskia and is also applied to pagan idols as objects of worship by some (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

Regardless, as Saint John of Damascus points out time and time again, the Holy Scriptures have a tremendous number of examples of God commanding his servants to offer praise and veneration to created beings.

I'd be satisfied with just one, NT preferred, since I don't know Hebrew well. Indefinite "probables" (i.e. "probably-not"s) don't count, i.e. Joseph's brethren falling down before him in fear, and the clear is preferred over the obscure, for example:

Neither shalt thou set thee up any image, which the Lord thy God hateth. (Deuterenomy 16:22).

And of course in the ten commandments, which is similar to the quote from Deuteronomy (not so surprising since Deuteronomy is from gk. "second [giving of the] law"), or:

Ye shall make no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down to it, for I am the Lord your God. (Leviticus 26:1).

czth

[ Parent ]

Do you really mean that? (none / 0) (#283)
by Anonymous 242 on Sun Feb 02, 2003 at 11:08:29 PM EST

we see in Deuteronomy 5:9 that either bowing down or serving any "graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth" (v8, emphasis mine) - including humans - is forbidden; in fact, even the making of such images is wrong.
Are you serious?

Such a viewpoint is prima facie absurd and contradicted by a good deal of Bible passages where God orders the creation and veneration of a large number of images for use in worship. That is unless you don't believe that statues of Seraphim, Cherabym, Serpents and Oxen (to name but a few) are the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth.

Nor do I suppose that you have any pictures of loved ones around the house. Such images would be verbotten by your interpretation of the above passage.

-l

[ Parent ]

I assure you, God is quite serious (5.00 / 1) (#284)
by czth on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 12:29:45 AM EST

Are you serious?

Irrelevant. God is.

That is unless you don't believe that statues of Seraphim, Cherabym, Serpents and Oxen (to name but a few)....

They were never to be (a) served or (b) worshipped or even (c) bowed down to or (d) set up at all near the Lord's altar (context of Deut. 16:22 and a-c are explicit in verses quoted in my earlier post). The serpent in particular was just looked upon for those afflicted to be healed; the Cherubim (not Seraphim) were in the temple and over the mercy seat and not to be worshipped etc.; and I don't know where you got the Oxen from, but if you're thinking of the golden calf, no, that wasn't right and the people were punished for it.

Nor do I suppose that you have any pictures of loved ones around the house. Such images would be verbotten by your interpretation of the above passage.

I do, but then I'm not an Old Testament Jew. But even if I was, I'd be safe as long as I didn't worship, bow down to, or serve them, or put them near any altar of the Lord.

czth

[ Parent ]

re: a woman rides the beast (5.00 / 1) (#269)
by Anonymous 242 on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 01:47:48 AM EST

I did some poking around and I found a reasonable review that mentions that Hunt's A Woman Rides the Beast is one of the biggest reasons he converted to the Church of Rome.

Apparently Hunt has some very large problems with historical accuracy. For example he overstates the toll of the inquisition by several orders of magnitude. He also claims that the Paulicians, Albigensians, Bogomils, Cathars "held beliefs similar to evangelicals of today."

I don't trust a person that can't get basic historical details straight to talk straight about theology. Especially if such a person thinks that Albigensians and Cathars are basically orthodox.

-l

[ Parent ]

Not so reasonable review (none / 0) (#275)
by czth on Sun Feb 02, 2003 at 01:58:39 AM EST

I did some poking around and I found a reasonable review that mentions that Hunt's A Woman Rides the Beast is one of the biggest reasons he converted to the Church of Rome.

Not so reasonable - it starts by attacking Hunt's credentials (without remembering that "the natural man discerneth not the things of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14, emphasis mine)) and then moves on to personal attacks (e.g. look at the page title).

From then it tries to attack his references by saying they are outdated - so what? Truth doesn't change; and the older a historical account is, the closer it is to the source. To put it bluntly, it's a really crappy article that, because it can't attack the points, tries and fails to undermine the writer and his sources. Extremely bad form but not unexpected.

Apparently Hunt has some very large problems with historical accuracy. For example he overstates the toll of the inquisition by several orders of magnitude. He also claims that the Paulicians, Albigensians, Bogomils, Cathars "held beliefs similar to evangelicals of today."

From what I've been reading, historian E. H. Broadbent agrees with him. I have also seen Inquisition death counts closer to his than the lower numbers that Catholics use to try to downplay their mass slaughter of Christians that would not fall in line with their heretical, money-and-power-grubbing system.

I don't trust a person that can't get basic historical details straight to talk straight about theology. Especially if such a person thinks that Albigensians and Cathars are basically orthodox.

Orthodox? According to Catholic definition, probably not, but that's a good thing. But Bible-believing Christians, meeting simply as the Lord commanded, "[living] Godly in this present evil age" as their testimony - most definitely. As many believers continue to do, and have done long before the Reformation, in fact, since the church was formed at Pentecost.

[The period 1100-1230] Brethren from Bosnia and other Balkan countries, making their way through Italy, came into the south of France, finding those who shared their faith everywhere. The teaching they brought with them found ready acceptance. The Roman clergy called them Bulgarians, Cathars, Patarenes, and other names, and following the habit of centuries, affirmed they were Manichaeans.

...

Bernard of Clairvaux complained bitterly of their [New Testament believers] objection to taking the name of anyone as their founder. He said: Inquire of them the author of their sect and they will assign none. ... But by what appellation or by what title will you enroll these heretics? Truly by none. For their heresy is not derived from man, neither through man have they received it. [Of course he was closer than he knew... "Out of the mouths of babes" etc.]

From The Pilgrim Church, E. H. Broadbent, p. 107, 109.

czth

[ Parent ]

Please don't gloss over what the Council said. (none / 0) (#262)
by Verax on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 08:57:20 PM EST

... (e.g. Trent, to just exmaine one council, which has been confirmed by recent popes).

The Catholic Church isn't and can't change that. The Holy Spirit is to protect the Catholic church from all error with regard to Faith and morals. Why would Jesus start a church, claim that the gates of hell won't prevail against it, and then abandon that church in favor another one? Anything coming from any of the councils that has to do with the truth regarding faith and morals is the truth. The truth does not change. That recent popes confirm the matters of faith and morals set forth in ecumenical councils should not come as a surprise; it simply can't be otherwise. That's not to say that the Pope couldn't make a mistake while doing long division on paper. And it's also not to say that the members of the Catholic Church can do no wrong. After all, by our own admission, we are a "church of sinners." But that does not change truth.

I said:
Veneration of relics is not everyone's cup of tea (even some Catholics in full communion with the Catholic Church.)
You Said:
Not so full communion, I don't think: Trent XXV - they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of saints; or, that these, and other sacred monuments, are uselessly honoured by the faithful; and that the places dedicated to the memories of the Saints are vainly visited for the purpose of obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and doth now also condemn them.

Apparently I was not clear. What I meant by the veneration of relics being "not everyone's cup of tea," is that not everyone is into doing that. That does not make honoring relics wrong. Neither does that make wrong those who prefer other spiritual exercises over honoring relics. What the council of trent conveyed was that to actually dishonor (as opposed to neither honoring nor dishonoring) relics and the like is gravely contrary to God's will.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Martyrs (none / 0) (#186)
by nictamer on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 02:04:12 PM EST

There has never been any christian martyrs in Rome, because until "christianity" was invented in the 3rd or 4th century after the hypothetical birth of their imaginary founder, there were no christians in Rome nor elsewhere for that matter.

However, there has been plenty of victims of christianism. We have plenty of records of those.
--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]

lame answer. try again. (5.00 / 1) (#211)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 11:56:22 PM EST

You really have to do better than that to troll me. Christian grafitti in the catacombs of Rome is undisputedly dated to at least the second century CE. Some scholars think that some may date to the first century. I won't even start on first century works such as the Didache, letter of Clement or the early second century letters such as those of Ignatius and the writings of Justin. Nor will I go to the early writings of heretical sects like the Gnostic gospel of Thomas that date to the first century. Even the ultra-liberal Jesus Seminar laughs at those "scholars" that continue to assert that Jesus of Nazareth was a myth.

[ Parent ]
In short: f!ck the saints. (none / 0) (#226)
by ph0rk on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 12:32:57 PM EST

What the hell have they done for me lately?

Now, as for good men Jacob Beam, Elijah Craig, T.W. Samuels, I salute you!  Finer men this world has not known.

.
[ f o r k . s c h i z o i d . c o m ]
[ Parent ]

Attitudes toward Saints (none / 0) (#310)
by Verax on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 06:24:04 PM EST

What the hell have they done for me lately?

What say we take a closer look? At the very least, what they did has affected the history that lead to the time you're in now. It may not be all to clear what that the effects are, and whether they have been good or bad. It may also not be clear whether they way they have indirectly affected recent history has had any effect on you personally.

But I'm curious. Why such hostility toward them? If you're asking what they have done for you lately, can I assume that you don't know whath they have done for you lately? If that's the case, then you wouldn't know of anything negative that they may have done to/for you lately. So why run around with all the bitterness?

I'm not judging you, by the way. I believe that we're free to run around with as much bitterness as our hearts desire. Personally I try to avoid it because I find that it wears me out and leaves me tired all the time. I know not everyone shares my views. I'm just curious as to what makes it worth your while to do so. Have I missed something?



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
What year is this? (2.66 / 3) (#37)
by Ashz0r on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 03:07:14 AM EST

Liquor and porn? Why, I must be 19 and in college again! Woo hoo go Matchbox 20!

Matchbox 20?? (3.16 / 6) (#40)
by NaCh0 on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 03:47:36 AM EST

Sorry. There will be no gay porn (or gay music) at my T&P party.

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
[ Parent ]
69 (3.30 / 10) (#41)
by starsky on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 03:47:41 AM EST

I voted it to 69 - WOOHOO!

...And thus spawned the new "First Post" (5.00 / 4) (#70)
by bsg on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 10:07:06 AM EST

(n/t)

[ Parent ]
20th of March - Steak and ... (4.85 / 7) (#45)
by Vs on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 04:33:36 AM EST

Can't stand Valentine? How about 20th of March? Quote:
March 20th is now officially "Steak and Blowjob Day". Simple, effective and self-explanatory.
Oh well....

Gratuitous despair.com link for all those left alone and not attending T&P-parties.
--
Where are the immoderate submissions?

Great Idea! (4.25 / 4) (#47)
by IslandApe on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:28:30 AM EST

Great idea, my only problem is that most of my friends are a little conservative and I'd only get away with it in a all male environment - which sounds a little like some sad teenager thing.

As one of the other posters said, Valantine's day can be a real pain if you are single as it has the tendancy to make one feel inadequate.  I know that this applies to women as much as men because of the solution to the problem that I have planned this year...

...I'm going with a lady friend of mine to Amsterdam for 4 days of hedonism - some may say debauchery!  She's in the same situation as myself and we're (very) occasional lovers - neither of us feel we're suitable for each other as soulmates - though whether sex happens in Amsterdam is to a large extent immaterial.  We just want to get away from Valentine's Day pressures in the UK.

I'm all for people rebelling against the tacky manufactured romance that I feel hurts the self esteem of those who, for whatever reason, feel that they cannot live up to the often unrealistic expectations of convention.  I salute you akp!



O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion;

This is gonna take some work (none / 0) (#107)
by MicroBerto on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 02:26:39 PM EST

Wow, my first post in quite a while!

Anyway, I am in College, at a rather crazy one that recently won the national football championship :)

Anyway, I wrote my roommies an e-mail (i'm at work co-opping right now) linking here and saying we should do this. First off, I know that they're too pathetic with their girlfriends to realize this. Second, I don't know how I'm going to get any of my girlfriends to come. This sounds like a challenge. Any recommendations on how to invite people and get the girls to come?!

Berto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Bertoline - My comic strip
[ Parent ]

college, huh? (none / 0) (#159)
by akp on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 10:56:50 PM EST

So what you're saying is that you want a suggestion on how to corrupt young impressionable women in our nation's colleges by showing them pornography? How terrible.

Find a female Women's Studies major (or, really, any woman who is reasonably well read in feminism) who thinks that Andrea Dworkin is full of shit. Suggest the idea to her.

Now, if you're in college, then it's probably pretty safe to assume that everyone would be over 18 and therefore old enough to view the porn. The alcohol is a different story. I guess that I'll just say that if you feature alcohol, then make sure that all of your guests are over 21.

-allen



[ Parent ]
Women's studies (5.00 / 1) (#167)
by Dephex Twin on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 12:39:50 AM EST

Find a female Women's Studies major (or, really, any woman who is reasonably well read in feminism) who thinks that Andrea Dworkin is full of shit. Suggest the idea to her.
Put me on a college campus and tell me I need to find a porn movie as quickly as possible, the first thing I'd ask is "where is the women's center"? I have only been to 4 or 5 women's centers at colleges, but every single one of them has had at least one porn movie or magazine (usually lesbian or S&M) somewhere in the lounge, if not more.
So what you're saying is that you want a suggestion on how to corrupt young impressionable women in our nation's colleges by showing them pornography? How terrible.
Oh, you must be joking. I knew I shouldn't have read this comment backwards!


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
T&T (4.75 / 4) (#49)
by tmenezes on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:39:02 AM EST

It's curious that me and my group of friends maintained a similar (though stranger) ritual... We actually called it T&T parties, which stands for Trivial & Taveira. I'll explain.

Here in Portugal we had a sex incident with a very famous architect in the late 80's. His name is Tomas Taveira. His hobie was to convince his university students to trade high grades for anal sex. He liked to record the action with a secret camera and kept his own private collection. Then he fired the house maid who had previously found out about his activities (though he didn't know that when he fired her). Let's just say that his collection is not so private anymore.

Well a friend of mine got a copy of the tapes and next Friday we decided to gather in a friend's house to watch it. But some of the girls didn't want to, so we decided we would play Trivial Pursuit while watching it. We also got drunk and stoned out of our minds. T&T parties where born. Oh I miss those...

These videos on the net somewhere (none / 0) (#50)
by starsky on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:45:38 AM EST

sounds, er, interesting.

[ Parent ]
Sorry mate... [NT] (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by tmenezes on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:56:54 AM EST



[ Parent ]
how funny (3.00 / 1) (#53)
by tweetsygalore on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 06:07:01 AM EST

personally, i prefer a mean margarita shake to drink...CHEERS! :)
After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realised that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis comes along. --- Justice William Brennan
Why is this on the front page? (1.78 / 19) (#61)
by MSBob on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 08:49:48 AM EST

How did this get to the front page? Please explain. I paid good money for this site but it's going downhill so quickly it's not even funny... Rusty can I have a refund?
I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

Because it's friggin' hilarious. <nt> (none / 0) (#72)
by Imperfect on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 10:10:34 AM EST



Not perfect, not quite.
[ Parent ]
Only if you're 17yo pimply faced nerd (nt) (1.00 / 7) (#73)
by MSBob on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 10:12:23 AM EST


I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

[ Parent ]
Hey, I am NOT pimply faced! (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by Tau on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 12:02:17 PM EST



---
WHEN THE REVOLUTION COMES WE WILL MAKE SAUSAGES OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ENTRAILS - TRASG0
[ Parent ]
now who's being offensive? (none / 0) (#85)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 12:12:12 PM EST

now who's being offensive?

you are insulting people. calling them pimply faced nerds. your offensive.

rusty! help! delete MSBob's post! it offends me! waa! waa! change my diaper too! waa! waa! ;-P
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

kind of like me (1.00 / 1) (#140)
by gjetost on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 06:39:05 PM EST

but I find this disgusting, stupid, and immoral.

[ Parent ]
Go somewhere else then, and I'm not a PFY, jerk. (none / 0) (#173)
by amarodeeps on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 02:53:07 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Dear Rusty (4.53 / 15) (#75)
by sllort on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 10:30:15 AM EST

Dear Rusty,
 It has come to my attention that the majority of the community of your web site disagrees with me. Through their democratic voting process, they have excluded me. I feel that this is unfair. While it is my option not to read an article, the presence of this article and the community's obvious enjoyment of it have wounded me deeply.

 I have considered the normal solutions to this matter, i.e. demagougery (nobody likes me), assassination (I don't own a gun), and command-level oppression. I have decided that the last option is my only hope.

It therefore falls to you, Rusty, to delete the votes of my opponents. Otherwise I will fail to contribute money to your web site in the future.

Sincerely,
 Jon Q. Idiot.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

Not offensive (1.33 / 9) (#77)
by MSBob on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 11:27:04 AM EST

It's not offensive. It's lame and juvenile that's why it irritates me. You're new to this blog aren't you?
I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

[ Parent ]
it not lame and juvenile... (4.00 / 1) (#78)
by Run4YourLives on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 11:32:50 AM EST

it's for people who like to enjoy life away from their computers sometimes...

and it's something that I could see myself doing, espescially since he wrote the article and gave me the idea.

On top of all that... it's funny.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

oh fer chrissake (5.00 / 7) (#84)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 12:09:43 PM EST

i wrote the story below this one in the queue. i had a guy just like you go "why did this make frontpage?! this story sucks!

look: for every story, there will be somebody who doesn't like the story. when you see "tequila and porn" think to yourself "i don't like this story" then

DON'T READ THE FRIGGIN' THING

your impulse to get rid of this story is the same impulse that leads to censorship. do you like censorship? no? then recognize its roots in your own thinking and JUST DON'T READ THE DANG STORY.

truth is, rusty has set up a great system. it's democratic. and it's very hard to argue with a democracy.

life isn't THAT serious you know. the internet is even less serious than that. so you are left with no other recourse. don't expect the posting queue to reflect your personal idea of top quality reading material every day all the time.

and for the last time, just remember- no one said you had to read the story! hello??!!

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

Your words, sir? Bon appetit! (3.00 / 2) (#119)
by Mohammed Niyal Sayeed on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 03:11:38 PM EST

"It is an article for programmers (Java programmers specifically) and K5 is also a Technology weblog in case you failed to notice the motto. If you're not into programming go back to reading some more 9/11 stories as there is certainly no shortage of those here."

- MSBob, in comments defending himself from alleged allegations of writing bullshit, which were actually just accusations of a high frequency of buzzwords in the original article.

So it seems either a) you have failed to notice the "culture" portion of the motto, or you have a nice little set of double standards here. Over my years of life, though, I've found infinite utility in simply NOT FUCKING READING things I don't want to read. It makes not being the emporer of the world around me that much easier to deal with.

Is this the part when you accuse me of not being here as long as you?


--
"You need to get your own point, then we can have an elaborate dance fight." - jmzero

[ Parent ]
Because it is compelling (4.80 / 5) (#94)
by mmuskratt on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 01:11:28 PM EST

This article is:

a)  Well written
b)  Entertaining
c)  Sexually oriented, yet clean
d)  Valid material for this site

Get over it.  Maybe you should throw a tequila and porn party.  Or if you don't drink or are a religious fundamentalist, perhaps you can get your friends together on Valentine's day for a Pictionary and Bible Study party instead.

[ Parent ]

Guess what. (none / 0) (#136)
by bjlhct on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 06:12:32 PM EST

This site is for other people than you too. If you don't like the article then don't read the rest of it. There are lotsa other ones.

*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]
Tequila & Pizza Breakfast (4.81 / 11) (#63)
by johnny on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:27:51 AM EST

The last time I left Africa (1978) some people threw a tequila & pizza going-away breakfast for me. At that time there were only two Dakar-New York flights per week, so the ex-pats would often arrange sort of a send-off party for whatever Yanks were leaving.

So my friend Richard sez, "Bob and Trix have organized your send-off breakfast. Somebody just got a "make-your-own-pizza" kit in the mail, and somebody else just got a big jug of Tequila. So that's the theme."

"But I don't know any of those people," I said.

"That's OK. They just needed an excuse for a party, and nobody else is on the flight this week, so you'll do."

I had just spent 8 months in the outback and only the day before gotten back lab results confirming two kinds of intestinal worms and various amoebae. I had lost about 50lbs over that time. But rather than get treated by a Frog or African doctor in Dakar, I had just sent a telegram to my state-side physician giving the diagnoses & asking him to research treatment.

I told Ricard, "I've got worms and dysentery, you fool. Why would I want to have a tequila-pizza breakfast before a ten-hour flight?"

"Nobody cares if you actually consume any of the treats at your party, John. In fact, I don't think anybody would notice if you failed to show up. However, I think that would be rude."

So I went to the party and thence to the airport. After a day at my folk's place I went to the doctor.

He asks, "When was the last time you had a bowel movement?"

"About three days ago."

"Three days ago? With worms and dysentery?"

"I ate a handful of lomotil at the party before my flight."

"A handful?"

"Doctor, it's a long flight."

"I think you've spent too much time in Africa. You don't take this seriously anymore."

yr frn,
jrs
Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Complex Devices.

HAHAHA (none / 0) (#81)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 12:01:47 PM EST

dude, remind me never to go to the african outback, that's hilarious ;-P
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]
How about Porn & RoboRally? (4.66 / 3) (#126)
by Ranieri on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 04:43:59 PM EST

This variation was constructed to distract one of our more intellectually alert friends and give us a chance to win this bloody game once in a while.
--
Taste cold steel, feeble cannon restraint rope!
Porn parties sound pretty fucking gay (2.08 / 12) (#131)
by Squeezer on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:41:51 PM EST

Its a couple of guys and a couple of girls watching some porn while drinking. So you are watching some hairy ass man laying some pipe in Jenna Jameson or something. I don't see how this can be fun. I'd rather play some music with them and play cars and order a few pizzas and act stupid. I don't so how anyone can have any fun watching some hairy ass guy lay some pipe in some rotten-out pussy. I can't see how the women would even enjoy it. A lot of women are turned off by sex because they aren't stimulated visually.

That's not gay (4.20 / 5) (#161)
by D Jade on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 11:34:01 PM EST

Members of the same sex having sexual contact is gay... Tally-ho with English tea and biscuits in the park is gay! Watching porn is not gay! Watching porn is the way I like to spend my day!

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Sad really. (2.85 / 7) (#139)
by Tezcatlipoca on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 06:34:53 PM EST

Although I am assuming this is most probably a very well disguised troll (which incomprehensibly is parked under the "Culture" section) it shows the prevalent hedonistic, self destructive nature that today's Western world  embraces far too easily.

I don't want to sound preachy, I enjoy my ocassional porn, I enjoy one or two beers or a glass of wine. The question is: is it necessary to completely embrute oneself to have a good time?

Pornography is something intimate, is a type of activity that helps the imagination there where the hormones may be failing and need an aditional boost. Pornography is the poor sister of eroticism, but part of the same family. I find to share such intimate things terribly embarrasing and frankly pointless. What I find sad is that in order to enjoy pornography you suggest to completely block out your senses by means of industrial amounts of alcohol.

So you neither enjoy the pornography because you are not the master of your own self, neither enjoy the alcohol because everybody knows that once you drink too much it is not enjoyable anymore and all this you do it in the name of showing the finger to a consummerist society.

I don't understand it.

I would understand an orgy, in which you assume your sexuality and acknowledge other human beens, I would understand to escape and runaway to some place where you can be with yourself, but your solution, although respectable, looks suspiciously like admitting defeat in face of the dehumanazing times we are living today.

While pretending you are fighting in reality you look suspiciously like having lost the battle for the space to celebrate human love.

"Stay a while, I'm distraught but juiced on your nearness."- johnny

Bring on the orgies? (4.00 / 1) (#148)
by Josh A on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 08:01:38 PM EST

I was about to suggest to my friend that we replace the orgy in favor of this "T&P party", but your comment has brought me back to my senses.

My dorm in college had an orgy as a programmed event... the RAs got in trouble, and the school won some politically correct outrage award.

---
Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


[ Parent ]
I agree with Tezcatlipoca? (5.00 / 1) (#150)
by jjayson on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 08:27:06 PM EST

I am unsure how many other times I will ever be able to say this again, so I have to take my shot at it now. Amazing.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Troll? (2.00 / 2) (#154)
by dotderf on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:49:19 PM EST

I suspect that your post is actually a brilliantly crafted troll. Or just some disaffected musings.
God is just a metaphor for everything that currently eludes science.
[ Parent ]
Not quite (5.00 / 4) (#162)
by Pseudonym on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 11:50:05 PM EST

The question is: is it necessary to completely embrute oneself to have a good time?

No. The purpose of the alcohol is to cover up the fact that you're not having a good time.

At least that's what I figure. I don't drink, and when I am at gatherings where others are drinking very heavily, I seem to be the only one who notices that things are very tedious.



sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
[ Parent ]
Culture, and I don't find it sad.. (5.00 / 2) (#170)
by akp on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 01:24:45 AM EST

Incomprehensibly? I'd think that discussion of the celebration of a holiday would fit exactly under Culture. As would a discussion of sexuality. I suppose that you could argue that the "Culture" section is for discussions of cultures larger than than the culture of a specific group of friends in the Boston area, even if the post is arguably an attempt to influence a larger culture. But, well, I'd disagree with you. And besides, if this article, as you say, shows the prevalent hedonistic, self destructive nature that today's Western world embraces far too easily, then wouldn't that feature qualify it for the Culture section also?

The question is: is it necessary to completely embrute oneself to have a good time?

Well, no. Of course not. That having been said, is there really such a problem with doing so on occasion? I mean, unless you're going to start arguing some sort of Platonic mind/body dualism (as your terminology invokes, what with the implication of becoming more like the negative brute (body) rather than the positive human (mind)), or one of its offshoots like the Christian association of physical pleasure with sin, then as long as nobody's being hurt then it should be just fine. I wouldn't suggest getting drunk and watching porn every night or anything like that. But there's nothing innately different about enjoying the pleasures of the mind versus the pleasures of the body. I wouldn't suggest staying up and playing Civilization all night, either, though I admit that alcohol is more likely to damage your liver than computer games are.

Pornography is something intimate, is a type of activity that helps the imagination there where the hormones may be failing and need an aditional boost. Pornography is the poor sister of eroticism, but part of the same family. I find to share such intimate things terribly embarrasing and frankly pointless.

Interesting. I don't claim to be much of an exhibitionist (though arguably this post proves that I'm at least a bit of one), but I've found that sharing some intimate details with close friends can be extremely helpful. Sex and sexuality are so suppressed and protected by taboo that it's really easy to find yourself thinking that you're some sort of sexual deviant no matter what your sexual interests are. Talking with people that you trust and respect about such things is a good way to find out that there's really nothing at all bad, dirty, or abnormal about your interests (or, I suppose, if you actually are into something that could harm others like children or something, then talking to others might be a good first step in getting the help that you need to deal with your problem).

So you neither enjoy the pornography because you are not the master of your own self, neither enjoy the alcohol because everybody knows that once you drink too much it is not enjoyable anymore and all this you do it in the name of showing the finger to a consummerist society.

I'd probably say it's to show the finger to a prudish society more than a consumerist society. And I at least don't drink to the point where it's no longer pleasurable, though I know that some people would argue that that stage is "after tipsy" while I would say it's "before sick." And as for the not enjoying the pornography... Well, to be honest, I often think that the whole drinking heavily part is just used as an excuse for watching the porn. That way if anybody questions you about why your eyes were glued to the set you can just answer that you were drunk. It's a very useful myth, though, so I don't expose it very much.

Now, as for the general parts about love... One could say that sex and love have nothing to do with each other, in which case the party isn't about love at all (unless one wants to argue that having an anti-Valentine's Day party of any sort is anti-love). Or one could say that sex and love are intertwined in some way, to which I'd say that realizing the vulgar biological (and, let's face it, silly) aspects of sex actually enhance one's understanding of sex as it relates to love, if only in contrast. Then again, I also think that people benefit from knowing how sausage is made and how laws are written.

-allen



[ Parent ]
whats the point of life without excess? (none / 0) (#225)
by ph0rk on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 12:29:27 PM EST

If you don't do X to excess every once and awhile, you'll forget what moderation is.

You'll also have a very boring life.

.
[ f o r k . s c h i z o i d . c o m ]
[ Parent ]

I agree, we need a Sex Section (none / 0) (#260)
by kholmes on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 07:40:59 PM EST

And perhaps some way for me to filter these articles off of my homepage.

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]
rich people (2.60 / 5) (#141)
by turmeric on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 06:50:55 PM EST

enjoy the suffering of the poor. same as it ever was.

ps (2.00 / 1) (#142)
by turmeric on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 06:55:30 PM EST

id like to commend you on thinking of exploiting poor people as 'liberal'. yes it is liberal in the tradition of the dutch east india company, monsanto, and enron. congrats. i hope your liberal friends have nice careers destroying the planet.

[ Parent ]
Post Post Script (5.00 / 1) (#165)
by hershmire on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 12:30:52 AM EST

Poor people get drunk and watch porn, too.

What was that saying? Ah yes: "Sex, the poor man's entertainment."
FIXME: Insert quote about procrastination
[ Parent ]
What was that saying? (none / 0) (#176)
by knoblaw on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 09:30:54 AM EST

Ah yes: "At least the poor are getting some." -Winston Churchill
I'm not an American citizen, I'm only human...
[ Parent ]
Brilliant (3.33 / 3) (#143)
by ThreadSafe on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 07:01:30 PM EST

'nuff said

Make a clone of me. And fucking listen to it! - Faik

The Houston 500 party (4.00 / 1) (#155)
by groove10 on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 10:01:54 PM EST

This story reminds me of a similar experience I had. In college, a group of buddies of mine decided to to throw a party with pornography going on in the background, moatly as a conversation piece. This idea sprang from the "Big Lebowski" party they had held the previous semesester. For this party they chose "The Houston 500". For those of you that don't know, this movie is basically a few hours of one porn actress, Houston, having sex with 500 different men. She does this in one sitting by the way.

Anyway, the party was big hit, even though much of the film wasn't being watched by the party goers. So my point is that parties + porn does not have to go exactly like this story suggested. Instead it can be a backgound, conversation piece instead of the main focus of the party. This may also make those friends of your that are not so into porn show up. Don't worry lots of people will show up to this party cuz of the great theme. Be safe and have fun!
Do you like D&D? How bout text-based MMORPGs? You need to try Everwars. It's better than shooting smack!
Some practical questions (3.50 / 2) (#203)
by Platy on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 06:21:36 PM EST

First off, I liked the story. I imagined making a party like this (but dismissed the thought at once, because I don't have suitable friends, I don't have a suitable room and I am not suited myself;)

Still I'd have some questions of a quite practical nature. Please excuse if you answered one or the other questions already in the article.
  • How many people do you usually invite or how many come?
  • How many rooms do you use? More like one really small (and comfortable;) room or more like two or more quite large rooms?
  • Do you show porn through the whole evening, more or less without interruption? (except for changing the tapes, of course) Or are there some (planned) general chit-chat interruptions?
  • Do you pay all this on your own or do you ask for an admission fee/small donation? How large are the expenses usually?
Thank you very much for the article and for answers in advance!

Cheers!
--
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I.
Some practical (?) answers (5.00 / 1) (#281)
by akp on Sun Feb 02, 2003 at 09:22:50 PM EST

How many people do you usually invite or how many come?
When we first started throwing the party we'd invite 25 or so people and have 15-20 come. Now it's more like 35 invited and 30 attending.
How many rooms do you use? More like one really small (and comfortable;) room or more like two or more quite large rooms?
When we first started we had a relatively large (for the Boston area) recreation room where we'd hold the party. By the time we started getting 30 or more people, that room became a bit crowded. Our new place has smaller rooms, so last year we tried keeping the porn viewing in one room and all the food and drinks in another. It was still a bit crowded when most of the guests were in watching the TV, though. I've just messed around with the wiring in our house such that we should be able to plug the VCR and DVD player into the house cable system, so we might try hooking up an extra TV and doing two rooms for video this year.
Do you show porn through the whole evening, more or less without interruption? (except for changing the tapes, of course) Or are there some (planned) general chit-chat interruptions?
A couple of times we've done interruptions, such as for the 'erotica' readings and the door prizes and so forth. In general we've just kept the porn going pretty much non-stop. When people want breaks they usually just go to another room.
Do you pay all this on your own or do you ask for an admission fee/small donation? How large are the expenses usually?
We usually do it on our own, though our guests often will bring some beer, tequila, or (rarely) porn. We typically rent 15 or so videos (so like $75-100, depending on where you get them). Alcohol is harder to estimate, since we usually use this as our yearly opportunity to restock our liquor cabinet, and we also always seem to get way too much beer. Add in snacks, though we usually get everybody to contribute for pizza. I should probably also mention that four of us usually throw the party together (two couples), so the costs are spead out a bit more.

Hope this helps.

-allen



[ Parent ]
Thanks (none / 0) (#288)
by Platy on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 08:29:48 AM EST

Thank you very much for your answers!
--
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I.
[ Parent ]
A bit of background and hint (4.50 / 2) (#213)
by t v on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 02:58:19 AM EST

pron, pr0n, and any similar writings are usually on pupose.  This began long ago (like 80's long ago) to get around sysadmins snooping through e-mail and files.

There was a time that e-mail only got transfered between servers when either the sysadmin decided to make a connection and let it go, or it was done at a set time each day.  This was done because we didn't have near the bandwidth available today.  It was truly a commodity then.

As these e-mails sat on whichever server it was before being transferred down the line, the occasional bored sysadmin would read through messages.  This was not very uncommon until more and more people started having access to send e-mail.  Then, because the sysadmin was unable to read all messages, they usually decided to search the messages for keywords.  Porn, sex, and all things related being the most searched on.

The sysadmins of the day knew that to keep others from reading finding thier messages, or equally as much, to alert the other sysadmins to the good stuff, they changed it up to pr0n.

You will also hear that the beginnings of this spelling was done by AOL'rs of the day to get around AOL filters.  Actually, while not being the first place by any means, this is where the 'word' got big exposure.  It was actually done there for that very reason, but started by those same sysadmins or anyone else that had caught on.  Remember, in the early days of the 'net, you had access through a university or from the government.  The next services that popped up to allow net access was Prodigy, Compuserve (THE provider at the time), and AOL.  AOL and the ability for users to create chatrooms easily propogated this to the masses.

Enjoy.

After drinks in the evening I don't care about spelling and such.  Oddly enough, spending my day thinking about my drinks in the evening doesn't leave me much time to worry about spelling and such during the day either.

This was supposed to be a reply to another comment (5.00 / 1) (#228)
by t v on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 12:55:33 PM EST

I guess after drinks in the evening I may not care much about spelling, but apparently I care less about replying to comments correctly. Oh well.

[ Parent ]
Moho or Smith? (none / 0) (#253)
by The Cunctator on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 05:02:50 PM EST

Inquiring minds want to know.

That would be telling (none / 0) (#279)
by akp on Sun Feb 02, 2003 at 07:04:04 PM EST

Though I will point out that there are other women's colleges out there.

-allen



[ Parent ]
V-Day (none / 0) (#259)
by dirvish on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 06:22:12 PM EST

I have attended porn parties before, but never on Valentine's day. My gf wants to go see some Andrew Lloyd Webber thing for V-Day. That's OK with me but we saw the exact same show a couple years ago, I don't really feel like seeing it again. That and it is $22 per person. I mentioned on my site and I will mention again here: we need a National Steak and Blowjob Day to balance out this V-Day crap. Anyways, back to the porn party. It was fun but unless there is going to be striptease or some giant orgy I would rather do something else.

Technical Certification Blog, Anti Spam Blog
What's wrong with good old Sex? (5.00 / 1) (#274)
by livus on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 10:44:14 PM EST

Call me old fashioned but I'd rather devote the day to prolonged bouts of good sex, than sit around trying not to notice my friends' erections and staring morosely from Asia to the tequila worm and back again.

But that's just me. I'd rather do it than watch it.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

some additional suggestions (none / 0) (#291)
by jearbear on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 03:58:18 PM EST

First off, I'm SOOOOO sorry that I'll be missing this years - as a word from a past attendee, this is a truly amazing experience. a few things left out (that are important from this participant's perspective)
  • breakfast on the morning after should DEFINATELY be something which post-tequila bellies can handle. i reccomend bisquits.

  • whatever you do, do NOT show Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on an adjacent screen. This comes from another party I put together. Let's just say I can't hear the Oompa-Loompa song now without freaking out.

  • I'm also a fan of hallowing these sacred events with a shrine to the god Pornos, lord of porn and pornocracy.


  • You think YOU'RE scared of Oompa-Loompas? (5.00 / 1) (#292)
    by Dephex Twin on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 05:35:14 PM EST

    There was a mini-porn party I briefly attended a couple years ago.  The reason I *briefly* attended was because the first movie that was played was midget porn, including, and I shit you not, a scene where a full-grown woman simultaneously pleasured two Oompa-Loompas who would sing dirty Oompa-Loompa-style rhymes encouraging her, and waving their hands in the air like the Oompa-Loompas do when they dance.  These guys *never broke character*.

    That may have been the single most fucked up thing I have ever seen.


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    Tequila and Porn (none / 0) (#293)
    by urbanboychik on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 07:55:23 PM EST

    Loved the concept. I am also in Boston and would like to offer something similar! I have some friends that don't really enjoy Valentine's Day (men and women). I had planned to go out to a bar and enjoy some Tequila (one of Boston's revered establishments), but I might reconsider and have a bash instead! Maybe a progressive drinking party - multiple locations (offer your place for the late night crowd when they have polished off my booze).
    http://www.529educationplan.com/pages/291256/index.htm
    We're having Tequila and Porn (none / 0) (#300)
    by boka on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 04:23:25 PM EST

    I talked with my roommate and we're having our own tequila and porn party. Here's our party invite:

    ------

    Yes kids, it's THAT time again! Time to bang the gong of celebration and rally the troops of festivity into action.

    What?!?! you ask... We're having a Valentines Day party. I can see the skeptical looks already... but before you roll your eyes and laugh, keep reading.

    Why?!?! you ask... Because of a couple of things. 1) It's a great excuse to have a party, and you all know by now, we like to party.
    2) It's a holiday, a holiday for love no less, and we love our friends.
    3) We're curious if we can actually get away with something like "Tequila and Porn" without Hallmark unleashing their hounds of hell upon us for our blasphemy on their day.

    Where and When?!?! you wonder... At our house, in Santa Cruz. Many of you know the way already, some of you may even remember leaving last time. Directions are easy, and if you need help just ask.

    The real scoop: We're having a V-Day party with a comical theme of "Tequila and Porn". Rest assured there will be liquors of many delightful flavors, and no we're not MAKING porn. We're just drinking and using the porn for ambiance. You know, to give us an amorously flared environment. Besides, if anyone we know was going to be offended by us and our antics, we've probably already gotten that out of the way, so it's full speed ahead from here on out. ;)

    Your role in all this: Receive this invite. Read it. RSVP to it. Make some time either during or after your other scheduled plans for the 14th and show up.

    What we want from you:
    1) We want you to show up.
    2) You must wear at least one piece of clothing with interesting texture. (Think latex, PVC, leather, polyester, silk, corduroy even)
    3) Bring yourself and a friend
    4) Bring some liquor and mixer.

    Key Notes: We're pushers and will push our filthy booze on you. Okay, you're warned....BUT we love you,so we're going to steal your keys too.... HEY, what a deal!

    As always please use your discretion when inviting others. New Years went well and we appreciate your understanding and co-operation.

    ------

    I'll post results and pictures when it's all over.

    Santa Cruz!? (none / 0) (#311)
    by vectro on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 07:59:00 PM EST

    Now you have to post the address. Or send e-mail. Or something.

    “The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
    [ Parent ]
    Tequila and Porn | 332 comments (309 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!