Drugs, Murder and Mexico

cloth shopping bags are part of the problem

i thought this thread was about drugs, mexico, and murder but i guess it's all about ice craem and his inability to carry cocaine in cloth bags

oh im sry is there someone else around here w/plastic shopping bags full of cocaine, i did not think so

I won't judge anyone for striking ice craem abruptly across the cheek w a pair of gloves for his roman from "party down" "random particles" defense of ppl who support a morally disgusting industry

Nihilism thats what I'm looking for

may that help to assuage yr feelings of helplessness for like the next two minutes

guys :(

Once you have abandoned "hope" you shall find the clarity you seek in us.

may that help to assuage yr feelings of helplessness for like the next two minutes

― ice cr?m, Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:20 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

congrats on feeling superior? i dont know what you want me to say, acknowledge that all humans have selfish motives at some level? u arent blowing my mind

doesnt make this more defensible tho!

assuaged my feelings w/ mexican food tonight, for a place called puebla they had surprisingly weak mole

was wondering what was going on in this thread all day, seeing it at the top of new answers.

Still don't understand though, sorry.

an honest discussion abt human motivation would certainly be like a billion trillion times more compelling than yr moral pronouncements

'i just think this is reprehensible!' *accuses someone of feeling superior*

who posted 'i just think this is reprehensible!' -- I did an Omar otm because it is one of the few ways this touches our lives & it's not something I've really heard many people bring up when discussing coke use -- i'd say it's a pretty compelling argument. thats really all there is to it.

i mean, where are you drawing the line exactly?

"people try to extract the moral truth from the endlessly complex global situations we all live in, which good and reasonable, were all trying to find the best way, so we decide to recycle or not do cocaine or steal or kill or abuse animals or w/e, but of course our efforts always seem rather feeble compared to the problems of the world, theres a sense that we might not be having any effect at all, i think its at this point that the urge arises to want to make others conform to the moral conclusions weve reached, and were like mad cause someone isnt using cloth shopping bags"

i mean, trying to draw equivalences between funding an inherently murderous system & forgetting to bring your cloth bag to the grocery store is kind of disingenuous don't you think.

i mean im not going around w/ picket signs about this or something, & pretty much everyone in this thread has been really cautious about being seen as 'judgmental' in every post, partic. omar, but if a friend was like "fair trade coffee is bullshit" id probably say ehh its really not, similarly w/ cocaine use so

fwiw fair-trade coke is great

i feel like we're stuck in some sort of game of trying to make the other person seem unreasonable ... but seriously, who has said anything itt that deserves JUDGEMENT? who are you directing your superiority at exactly? I think it's totally reasonable to make moral decisions for yourself & then make those arguments in a public space to persuade people to your line of thinking. No one here is talking about snitching on their friends for doing coke or something

Banaka!!!

― pathos of the unwarranted encore (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:25 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

real talk this is a grim fucking thread and this post made me lol v hard

i mean, trying to draw equivalences between funding an inherently murderous system & forgetting to bring your cloth bag to the grocery store is kind of disingenuous don't you think.

― sorry for party blogging (D-40), Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:50 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

not really, climate change has the potential to make the number of people killed in the drug war look like a rounding error, it may have already killed more depending on how you look at it, and theres a similarity in that an individuals decision of shopping bag or whether to use cocaine or not will almost certainly have no effect on the total body count - however if you personally abuse an animal an animal that was not before abused will now be abused so i dont think thats v apt

however if you abuse an animal

who are you directing your superiority at exactly?

― sorry for party blogging (D-40), Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:51 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol wtf does this even mean

i mean, what posts on this thread drove u to make your 'point'

you can just do a search for my name and review the whole thread its p easy

not really, climate change has the potential to make the number of people killed in the drug war look like a rounding error, it may have already killed more depending on how you look at it, and theres a similarity in that an individuals decision of shopping bag or whether to use cocaine or not will almost certainly have no effect on the total body count - however if you personally abuse an animal an animal that was not before abused will now be abused so i dont think thats v apt

however if you abuse an animal

― ice cr?m, Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:58 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

well if you've made this mental calculus then you can feel free to judge me if i forget to bring a cloth bag to the grocery store! You could probably make a persuasive argument about it! otoh i could also make an argument that, you know, you need to get food & carry it in something home, and that because you forgot to bring a cloth bag, an extra trip in your car actually increases the amount of gas released into the ozone, so in fact it actually saves the environment to not make the trip home just to get a bag, and you're talking about all of these logistical issues which involve modern life in some v complicated ways, vs

dont do cocaine

which is pretty simple, and easy, and doesnt actually interfere w/ transporting food from distributor to home. i mean, its just a whole lot easier way to minimize your 'footprint'! in my opinion.

and im also not entirely convinced that, as a fraction of the environmental impact, using one paper bag is actually as harmful anyway, beacuse as a 'tragedy of the commons' issue its a much more widely distributed source of harm than 'people who buy coke' so your numbers game could easily be off. there's also ways to curb greenhouse gases that wouldn't involve people always using cloth bags; when it comes down to it, shopping bags alone are a pretty small % of the problem.

but this is, like, all beside the point, because really to be a 'good person' you should probably do both! your game of delineating which is more harmful & to what degree is silly; driving a car isn't as bad as driving an SUV, but that doesnt make it ok to drive a car either.

you can just do a search for my name and review the whole thread its p easy

― ice cr?m, Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:06 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im asking which particular post struck you as being so over the top in its need to pat itself on the back.

there is a simple answer to all of this and it is to kill anyone you disagree with.

i wont judge you for killing us, because what, are we all gonna have to recycle?

my game is totally not delineating which is worse! what i was doing was comparing things people enjoy taking moral stands on because theyre v easy and painless to do so, that are in the big scheme of things likely to change basically nothing and have v little to do w/someone actually being a 'good person'

you can just do a search for my name and review the whole thread its p easy

― ice cr?m, Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:06 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im asking which particular post struck you as being so over the top in its need to pat itself on the back.

― sorry for party blogging (D-40), Thursday, September 29, 2011 1:09 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ok at yr request ive reviewed and the first one was just agreeing w/iatee who wasnt even directing anything at anyone in this thread so far as i can tell

i dont think anyone here has argued that they were about to cause change -- most of us i thought agreed w/ iatee? -- but that if u are aware of the harm an activity causes at this level & continue to do it anyway then in my particular world i might not consider u a particularly commendable person, and i might say so, on ilx, as im doing right now, and expect that this not be met w/ the consternation of an apparent nihilist who thinks taking a moral stand is pointless

post the number of times you've done cocaine here

if an activity is causing harm then by definition ceasing it would end the harm thereby causing change, no?

a couple dozen maybe?

always preferred speed tbh

the consternation of an apparent nihilist who thinks taking a moral stand is pointless

― sorry for party blogging (D-40), Thursday, September 29, 2011 1:16 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

its v strange how people often dont think youre engaging w/their arguments honestly around here

fwiw i do think taking pointless moral stands is pointless #nihilism

ice cream do you think its possible to engage honestly with arguments on the internet

nah n/m nothing matters...

did you know napolean ate with aluminum utensils

I thought "apparent" made it obv I was willing to give u the benefit of the doubt but that this was how your argument was coming across since it appeared to not actually be about anything except that other ppl are dumber than u

And after they post
They go lookin' for the dopeman

That last post read poorly, but basically I just don't get jhos argument so I was using the "universe is meaningless" stuff bcuz I don't rlly know how else to interpret it ... Obv we bring our own judgments onto others all the time. As jho did in this thread. And sometimes the stuff we judge them on isnt rlly that big a deal relative to the world's suffering. For me tho when the link to the horrors of it is so clear, and the cost to me so minimal, I feel reasonably comfortable being "self righteous" about this particular issue

http://ddeubel.edublogs.org/files/2010/11/teachable-moment-spectrum-24mnjij.jpg

somebody give me a fuckin cookie for not getting up on some What You're Actually Supporting When You Eat Meat stuff here ok

a vegan cookie you dickheads, no wise guys

Ah, but no more eating meat introduces a moral paradox: if everyone was vegetarian, then the millions (billions?) of animals bread to be consumed - cows, chickens, pigs, etc. - would all slowly die of starvation and neglect. So, yeah, there would be no more mistreatment of animals and Big Meat, but that would only come after the heartless global animal genocide. But if everyone stopped doing drugs, the only victims are the nefarious criminal cartels that cultivate them.

And the people that really, really want to do drugs, of course, boo hoo. They can get a sympathy cookie.

welp i guess thats taken care of then

Vegan cookie.

That last post read poorly, but basically I just don't get jhos argument so I was using the "universe is meaningless" stuff bcuz I don't rlly know how else to interpret it ... Obv we bring our own judgments onto others all the time. As jho did in this thread. And sometimes the stuff we judge them on isnt rlly that big a deal relative to the world's suffering. For me tho when the link to the horrors of it is so clear, and the cost to me so minimal, I feel reasonably comfortable being "self righteous" about this particular issue

― sorry for party blogging (D-40), Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:58 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah first id like to apologize for the self righteous ass comment it kinda uh got things off on the wrong foot and was fairly self satirizing on my part - i guess my point is that 'moral stands' that are super easy to make have little to no real world impact and are enthusiastically deployed to cast others in a harsh light are prob not really moral, theyre more 'entertainment'

Ah, but no more eating meat introduces a moral paradox: if everyone was vegetarian, then the millions (billions?) of animals bread to be consumed - cows, chickens, pigs, etc. - would all slowly die of starvation and neglect. So, yeah, there would be no more mistreatment of animals and Big Meat, but that would only come after the heartless global animal genocide. But if everyone stopped doing drugs, the only victims are the nefarious criminal cartels that cultivate them.

this is true, much as when you have a child you should be able to p much do what you want with it, because after all it wouldn't be around if it wasn't for you so shouldn't complain.

c'mon man, stopping forcing animals into existence, mutilating them & then electrocuting them to death = 'heartless global animal genocide': really? i don't think this is a 'moral paradox' - when we apply that kind of logic to thought experiments in which someone is or isn't born, and so whose life is speculative, it assumes some degree of 'quality of life' in either circumstance. us not producing animals for slaughter isn't really depriving anything of its vivid & sacred life force.

which is not to say i dont sympathize w/people who dont feel comfortable engaging in some aspect of the drug war or factory farming or whatever, but its imho a much better look to approach this from a personal decision pov

i think if we lived in a world sensitive enough to synchronously convert to vegetarianism, we would probably be touchy-feely enough to kick a spare carrot to the the animal in the field.

a lot of people seem to enter into these situations for the express purpose of putting themselves on a pedestal tho