I enjoy Opeth more when I am smoking pot

"It is foolish to believe what people say just because they are in a position of power, even if it is just informational or intellectual power."

SO FUCKING TRUE!!!!!
In second grade I was diagnosed ADD and put on ritalin because the doctor said it was the best thing to do. The only real problem I had was not being challenged in the classroom. After being placed in the gifted program, the symptoms "magically" dissapeard. However, side-effects of the medication such as nurological tics remained. My doctor's facts =\= truth.

However, I don't buy the "I won't use pot beacause I've seen other people use it and I don't like them" argument. Pot, unlike ritalin, has no major side-effects, and I plan on trying it some day soon. Nor do I like Ken's escapist attitude toward things.

But he is right. Nothing can be proven from our non-omnesient viewpoint.
NOTHING!!!! We can only make up rules that support our observations.

I'm studying physics and music too. I'm a freshman.
 
Maybe if i smoked pot i would know, but all i need to know is that opeth is the best music ive ever heard, and i want it to stay that way.
 
Kenneth R. said:
*hypocrisy. :Smug:

Oh right, I made a spelling error, I guess that makes me more of a moron than the guy who claims nothing can ever be proven. Damn..
 
alright then, prove something to me.

essentially my position is:
I think smoking in general is stupid. This is my opinion. I will not tell smokers they are absolutely wrong. I say I think you are wrong. I respect your freedom to think otherwise, as you should not let other people think for you. You can't prove to me that it is safe, and I cannot prove that it is not. I do not see how smoking anything can be beneficial as the physical act of smoking seems counter productive to the purpose of lungs, unless perhaps there is some form of smoke which is healthy and useful, but I know of none. By my understanding of the information (call them facts if you want) that is available to me, I have come to a conclusion. This conclusion in concert with the observations of friends I have had and their experiences have led me to my point of view. That is all.
 
vampyrouss said:
I remember being at heathrow with my brother who smokes, and not being able to smoke for however many hours made him desperate for one, so outside at the bus station he lit a smoke, and some woman standing near started doing the pathetic coughing thing ... blah blah blah ...

I don't smoke. I don't enjoy being around smokers, but most of my friends smoke, so I put up with it and they put up with the fact I don't smoke. But I won't have some idiot telling my brother not to smoke in a TOTALLY EMPTY BUS STATION WITH LOADS OF ROOM TO STAND SOMEWHERE ELSE and not to mention that in london EVERYTHING STINKS LIKE SOMETHING UNPLEASANT ANYWAY.

Wow, you're a total asshole, _and_ you suck at logic. Not surprising, just very annoying.

So if someone unleached a nasty, stinking fart while standing right next to you, you wouldn't be annoyed/tell the person that they're a total asshole for doing that? You'd just move away and mind your own business? Well, you're a spineless fuck.

Yes, your brother has the right to smoke his cigarette. I'm not anti-cigarettes in any way _unless_ they're smoking in the presense of other people who do not wish to partake. So, being that this was a "totally empty bus station", why is your brother such an arrogant, antagonistic fuck that _he_ can't move to a location where his cigarette smoke is not affecting anyone else? It's _his_ fault, not the fault of the person who hates cigarette smoke. He should show some respect for other people and endulge in his filthy habit away from other people (just as I do when smoke my equally filthy marijuana, or farting, or talking loudly on my cell phone, etc.).
 
Kenneth R. said:
alright then, prove something to me.

essentially my position is:
I think smoking in general is stupid. This is my opinion. I will not tell smokers they are absolutely wrong. I say I think you are wrong. I respect your freedom to think otherwise, as you should not let other people think for you. You can't prove to me that it is safe, and I cannot prove that it is not. I do not see how smoking anything can be beneficial as the physical act of smoking seems counter productive to the purpose of lungs, unless perhaps there is some form of smoke which is healthy and useful, but I know of none. By my understanding of the information (call them facts if you want) that is available to me, I have come to a conclusion. This conclusion in concert with the observations of friends I have had and their experiences have led me to my point of view. That is all.

I asked if you were referring to this topic, you said no and that nothing in reality could be proven. So, I went ahead and proved something... then you told me that my argument was useless, which clearly it wasnt because I just proved something after your told me it cant be done.
I dont give a shit about your opinions about smoking, Im trying to tell you that its so obviously possible to prove things.
 
daz436 said:
I asked if you were referring to this topic, you said no and that nothing in reality could be proven. So, I went ahead and proved something... then you told me that my argument was useless, which clearly it wasnt because I just proved something after your told me it cant be done.
I dont give a shit about your opinions about smoking, Im trying to tell you that its so obviously possible to prove things.
well by your 3rd grade logic, since you can prove things, then it is possible for me to prove that nothing can be proven. :saint: it was a useless argument. you just didn't realize that... :erk:
 
Kenneth R. said:
well by your 3rd grade logic, since you can prove things, then it is possible for me to prove that nothing can be proven. :saint: it was a useless argument. you just didn't realize that... :erk:

Stop trying to be funny by using shit insults please, and where did I say that everything could be proven? I showed you that some things can be.. maybe you should use your brain to focus on reading what people say rather than coming up with crap insults strewn into your stubborn replies?

You foolishly claimed that nothing can be proven ever. I proved something, and while doing so I also proved you wrong.. so there's 2 things.

Now you're writing a pile of bullshit because you realise you were wrong in the first place.
 
mr_cellotape said:
Wow, you're a total asshole, _and_ you suck at logic. Not surprising, just very annoying.

So if someone unleached a nasty, stinking fart while standing right next to you, you wouldn't be annoyed/tell the person that they're a total asshole for doing that? You'd just move away and mind your own business? Well, you're a spineless fuck.

Yes, your brother has the right to smoke his cigarette. I'm not anti-cigarettes in any way _unless_ they're smoking in the presense of other people who do not wish to partake. So, being that this was a "totally empty bus station", why is your brother such an arrogant, antagonistic fuck that _he_ can't move to a location where his cigarette smoke is not affecting anyone else? It's _his_ fault, not the fault of the person who hates cigarette smoke. He should show some respect for other people and endulge in his filthy habit away from other people (just as I do when smoke my equally filthy marijuana, or farting, or talking loudly on my cell phone, etc.).

Well, my point was, we were standing somewhere. Someone else came and stood next to us and complained. We didn't ask them to come to us. They could have stayed away from us. If he lit up a smoke whilst in a crowded place I would agree with you, and so would he. But we were in an empty place, he was smoking, THEN someone came and stood near us and complained.

So yeah, you figure that out. You could be standing somewhere talking on your MOBILE phone, and some lady comes up to you and says her daughter or whatever died of cancer that may or may not have been caused by mobile phone usage and tells you that it is wrong to use a mobile phone in public. Same thing no? Would you be annoyed?

And yes it is their fault if they came and stood next to us only to have a go and then walk off again when I had a go back. If you don't like smoking and have the option of not being near the smoke then surely its your fault if you go and stand in a smoke filled place.
 
actually, you might also want to check out the General Theory of Relativity and the Observational Effect (ie, obtaining knowledge about something requires an observation, and the observation itself alters the state of the observed object/event)
 
Kenneth R. said:
actually i was thinking i should just type ":l.ol:" and be done with it. You might start by checking out the Scientific Method, or Philosophy 101 before you "insult" me again. :)

also see: Exception Paradox. This is your so-called argument's "proof" which is itself a logical fallacy of the paradox type.

All you've proven is... well... nothing :lol:

I don't give 2 flying shits about you and your philosophical approaches. Look at things from a normal fucking perspective and see that I actually did fucking prove something, I proved that you said something by providing evidence in the form of a quote. So reply with all the ':lol:' smiling faces you want, its not going to annoy me, I just sincerely hope you manage to realise that you arent always right and shed some of your arrogance or it might cause you problems in future.
 
Judging from your reply, I think you're the one being arrogant here, trying desperately to "win" this argument. See above links regarding "proving" anything.

I don't care what you think of me, honestly. If you want it from a "normal" perspective, I've already answered that too. Let's see:

1. I say nothing can be proven.
2. You say that I can't prove nothing can be proven.
a. The correct result of this is in agreement with my statement, that I cannot prove nothing can be proven, and my statement is unproven.
b. You however, use the exception paradox to assume that since nothing can be proven, something MUST be provable. This is simply your assumption, and is a logical fallacy since "unproven" and "provable" are not mutually exclusive opposites. It is not "true" and "false".

3. I then, as a "normal" response, half jokingly reply that according to your assumption, since proofs can exist, there exists a proof that verifies nothing can be proven. In short, I use your logic. You tell me it is logically wrong. Of course it is, but then you supported yours with this same method, so really you also negated your own argument.

4. We must not misunderstand that I am saying nothing can be disproven. The Scientific Method and all of our understanding of logic is based on disproving things. If I say "the sun will rise at 7am every day" and it does, for a thousand years, but then just once it rises at 6:59, even if it rises for eternity afterwards at 7am, this statement has been disproven. You cannot make an affirmative proof. This is because A. We cannot with certainty predict the future and B. We cannot observe the present from an omnipresent frame of reference, nor C. Observe it without altering it.

The short version: Everything is assumption, everything is opinion. It is based (or should be anyway) on observations which yield a probable outcome which we then conclude could be the case. Nothing can be proven.
 
2. You say that I can't prove nothing can be proven.

no i didnt

and lol, im not desperately trying to win anything, im stating facts, you're the one bringing 3rd party websites into the discussion in your futile attempts to sway me with philosophy.