<p>how are you guys dealing with the anxiety/never-ending month of April? I'm going crazy...</p>
<p>Fantasy baseball</p>
<p>Somebody had to say it ... alcohol and recreational drugs. That and reading/studying.</p>
<p>When I want to make April go faster, I think about how long those first two weeks of May will be.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
alcohol and recreational drugs
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>...are a waste of your precious time.</p>
<p>In fairness, (s)he did admit they were recreational.</p>
<p>My brother is going to come visit :) Thats going to make 4 days very awesome. The rest of the days... a little too long already for my taste.</p>
<p>A lot of alcohol. Messing around on CC (which doesnt seem to help). </p>
<p>I don't know why but I thought this thread was about The Band's song The Weight. Yeah.</p>
<p>I beg to differ. Aldous Huxley, F.Scott Fitzgerald, Jack Kerouac, Carl Sagan, Faulkner, Freud, and a great many other intellectuals were drinkers and/or recreational drug users. Futhermore, the substances of choice were, for a great many thinkers, central to the themes and issues of identity that they dealt with in their work. So, I think it's fair to say that being intimately acquainted with intoxicants is a different path than sobriety but not neccessarily a better one.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I beg to differ. Aldous Huxley, F.Scott Fitzgerald, Jack Kerouac, Carl Sagan, Faulkner, Freud, and a great many other intellectuals were drinkers and/or recreational drug users.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Hey! Yeah! I also heard that Van Gogh cut off his ear; I guess by that reasoning we should all find it permissable to cut off our ears. We could probably excuse Hitler, Kaczinski, and few others as well -- because, let's face it, the men were genius. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Futhermore, the substance of choice of a great many thinkers were central to the themes and issues of identity that they dealt with in their work.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>So...if it is "central to" the theme of an virtuoso's work, it is therefore benign? I do recall hearing a story about a 20th artist who used to kidnap women and force them to pose nude for his work; right on, it was central to the theme. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
So, I think it's fair to say that being intimately acquainted with intoxicants is a different path than sobriety but not neccessarily a better one.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I am not sure that this one even warrants a response.</p>
<p>please dont do this.</p>
<p>I was merely pointing out that drugs and alcohol can serve as the impetus for creative and otherwise provoking thought. I wasn't saying "Look at all these famous people!! They can't be wrong!!!"</p>
<p>For example, can we really say Freud would have been the Freud we know today without cocaine? Would Fitzgerald have been the same without alcohol?To assume that the use of intoxicants is a waste of time is to assume that they can have no use in constructive endeavors. I think it's very evident that we owe much of our culture and sources of modern thought to the influence that these substances had on the minds of the people to whom we give credit for important works and discoveries.</p>
<p>I agree, please dont get into this and stick to the original topic.</p>
<p>Now, about the wait: it sucks. I check the mailbox every day even though I am not supposed to get anything for another three weeks. I have been spending more time than usual in the gym in order to get ready for summer so that takes my mind off the wait. Only four more weeks until spring semester is over so I am counting the days.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
For example, can we really say Freud would have been the Freud we know today without cocaine? Would Fitzgerald have been the same without alcohol?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I have heard this argument a million times -- and I hate it more everytime I hear it as it lessens my faith in this generation. </p>
<p>Fallacy of questionable cause. You are assuming that because genius has, at times, been simultaneous with intoxication that intoxication was therefore the cause of that genius. But have you any real evidence that such genius was not present to begin with? </p>
<p>Even so, it would be hard to argue that the benefits of a few, artistically delightful productions concerning purple bunnies and orange fields were more beneficial to humanity than what was produced under an unadultered search for truth. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I was merely pointing out that drugs and alcohol can serve as the impetus for creative and otherwise provoking thought.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Once again, do not ground what is morally permissable on what provokes artistic genius.</p>
<p>My last OT post: I never ever said anythign to the effect that "Fitzgerald+alcohol=literary genius" or "Freud+blow=psychoanalysis." I merely said that it is evident that they were contributing factors to those persons thought processes. I never said that substance abuse was the root cause. </p>
<p>Also, what we ought to do and what stimulates progress are two very different things. To this day, one could argue that heart transplants are wrong.(When is the line between life and death crossed? If a human being has a warm body and a beating heart are they technically alive? We see this all the time with cases like Terri Schiavo's.) Does that mean we shouldn't do them?</p>
<p><em>tear</em> Janel89, you make me proud.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I merely said that it is evident that they were contributing factors to those persons thought processes. I never said that substance abuse was the root cause.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Once again, there is no solid proof that their work would have been any less remarkable had there not been blow and booze involved. If anything, had Freud's mind not been hacked-up on coke for a great number of years -- perhaps he might have actually produced a theory that wasn't utter BS. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Also, what we ought to do and what stimulates progress are two very different things. To this day, one could argue that heart transplants are wrong.(When is the line between life and death crossed? If a human being has a warm body and a beating heart are they technically alive? We see this all the time with cases like Terri Schiavo's.) Does that mean we shouldn't do them?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Oh. You might want to point out how this is in any way pertinent. You might also try to write so that your sentences make sense.</p>
<p>If, however, you are trying to argue that I cannot say intoxicants are impermissable because they do not contribute to progress, might I refer you back to a previous statement of yours:</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I think it's very evident that we owe much of our culture and sources of modern thought to the influence that these substances had on the minds of the people to whom we give credit for important works and discoveries.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Clearly, you and I are in accordance in that what truly is beneficial and engenders progress to society is favorable. However, I disagree that the few benefits of drugs will ever outweigh the deleterious consequences and stagnation that it brings (such as violence, addiction, poverty -- and internationally, human rights violations, arms profileration, sex trafficking, economic depletion, the Dutch disease effect, political corruption, ETC.) </p>
<p>I have not the time to explain to you these realities. And I will not continue with this any further as I must attend to a paper. </p>
<p>Enjoy your narcissism while you still can.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I disagree that the few benefits of drugs will ever outweigh the deleterious consequences and stagnation that it brings (such as violence, addiction, poverty -- and internationally, human rights violations, arms profileration, sex trafficking, economic depletion, the Dutch disease effect, political corruption, ETC.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't forget terrorism! </p>
<p>I'm with you 100%: we need to thoroughly control people's bodies in the name of human rights. Rather than legalize, tax and regulate we should oppose pot smoking at all costs. If we made drugs legal, anyone (including non arms-dealing sex trafficers) would be able to sell them, and that would be just about the worst thing in the world. Other than the straw man logical fallacy, which has been completely absent from your posts, I can think of nothing more deleterious or stagnating than people choosing for themselves whether or not they wanted to take a risk. On with progress!</p>
<p>/ not a smoker or a drinker
// not funny (or concerned about the lack of humor)</p>
<p>ha ha ha ha, usually, i think i love you</p>
<p>Janel,</p>
<p>Recall what I said about the rigour of science and its tendency to deter persons and thus steer them toward a false sense of depth primarily induced by hallucinogenic substances and questionable academic practices.</p>
<p>Do not waste your time on these quidnuncs.</p>