{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by die wily:
8/12/2013 9:58:32 AM
19
[quote]Just think about how dumb the average person is, and realize that half of us are dumber than THAT.[/quote]Nice Carlin quote. You know he was a user of several drugs, right? He's been quoted as saying that marijuana helped him write a ton of his material.
[quote]Are there any top tier scientist or engineer that use drugs?[/quote]I know Sagan, Feynman, and Freud were all users.
Also, the current US president admited to smoking weed when he was younger.
English
-
Edited by GuN: 8/25/2013 4:20:49 AMFreud only used his drug of choice cocaine for experimentation, he even stopped justifiying it as treatment for depression or something like that after many others showed its addictive properties. Also, he was really into exploring the human mind, that's initially why he wanted to try the drugs--not really for recreation, but to see the extents of the human mind. Feynman was never a heavy user--he even quit drinking alcohol even in moderation because he was afraid it would damage his brain.--->In his autiobiography he even wrote "You see I get such a kick out of thinking that I don't want to destroy the most pleasant machine that makes the world kick. It's the same reason that I was reluctant to try experiments with LSD in spite of my curiosity (about highs) and hallucinations"). I think maybe I remember reading he experimented with marijuana a few times, but like alcohol, he quit it because he was afraid it would impair
-
Please tell me you didn't just use Freud as a positive...He was a nut job obsessed with -blam!-ing hids mother.
-
Edited by die wily: 8/12/2013 6:19:18 PMI did. I also used a politician as a positive, which I consider to be a cardinal sin. Anyway, the major problem with Freud is that he was dogmatic as fuck.
-
No he was nuts and none, None of his theories panned out they have all been debunked. Any Freudians left are just as nuts.
-
Edited by die wily: 8/12/2013 6:39:54 PM[quote]None of his theories panned out they have all been debunked.[/quote]Same with a ton of non-nuts scientists / thinkers. But you sell him short: id, ego, and superego are still occasionally discussed, and aspects of his therapeutic policies have leaked into tons of other modern therapies.
-
[quote]Nice Carlin quote. You know he was a user of several drugs, right? He's been quoted as saying that marijuana helped him write a ton of his material.[/quote] yeah, nice job catching the reference. And I was arguing about PRODUCTIVE people (which I will address in a bit). Carlin was a comedian, not somebody in the STEM field, if you're not STEM you're not PRODUCTIVE in my book, you're just pushing papers and doing shit anybody else could do. [quote]I know Sagan, Feynman, and Freud were all users.[/quote] I'm sure they weren't as effective at coming up with formulas, designs, or theories while high. [quote]Also, the current US president admitted to smoking weed when he was younger.[/quote] top lel. He's just a puppet. He'll says whatever he wants to appeal to the public, get his approval ratings up, seem cool etc. He lies about the damn NSA and you believe ANYTHING he says now? He's just a dumb, lying puppet, and he hasn't come through on any of his promises of "change". I'm surprised you brought him up as something to strive towards. -blam!- that guy. And I'm probably now on some NSA "watchlist" lol.
-
[quote] Carlin was a comedian, not somebody in the STEM field, if you're not STEM you're not PRODUCTIVE in my book, you're just pushing papers and doing shit anybody else could do.[/quote]Just because anybody can do it doesn't make it any less productive, or vital to the running of society. Good thing you weren't the one that wrote the book on productivity [quote][quote]I know Sagan, Feynman, and Freud were all users.[/quote] I'm sure they weren't as effective at coming up with formulas, designs, or theories while high. [/quote]That's one mighty assumption there buddy
-
[url=http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana-abuse/how-does-marijuana-use-affect-your-brain-body]source[/url] [quote]Marijuana use impairs a person's ability to form new memories (see below) and to shift focus. THC also disrupts coordination and balance by binding to receptors in the cerebellum and basal ganglia—parts of the brain that regulate balance, posture, coordination, and reaction time. Therefore, learning, doing complicated tasks, participating in athletics, and driving are also affected.[/quote] not assuming much here, somebody else did the experimentation for me.
-
Have you ever smoked before? You can think about things from a different perspective and make connections you would normally never make. The short term memory impairment is a fairly facetious claim because your train of thought runs at a much higher rate; you're thinking about one thing then you think about something related to that and so on, it's a little harder to keep your thoughts contained because ideas come out of nowhere, but it's entirely possible and quite frankly not all that difficult to do if you're experienced By the way, the studies on memory impairment while high are done on animals, not people with higher brain functions and complex thought systems. I'm not saying the research is wrong, just that it's probably not wise to directly apply it to us. Just a bit of stoner insight, I guess.
-
No, I don't plan on taking any mind altering drug ever.
-
So you think reading some bullshit from a government website allows you to form a 100% correct opinion on how the brain functions while high, even though you've never experienced it yourself? So why do you think your opinion matters if you have no real understanding of the subject?
-
[quote]I'm sure they weren't as effective at coming up with formulas, designs, or theories while high.[/quote]But they have [url=http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/]raved about the benefits.[/url]
-
tl;dr bro.
-
[quote]tl;dr bro.[/quote] Translation: I'm denying this because it proves the fact that weed smokers are, in fact, productive.
-
No it was literally tl;dr. Whenever I cite something I usually quote the main part I'm citing, LIKE YOU WOULD NORMALLY DO IN A RESEARCH PAPER. You don't make somebody read a book to prove YOUR point!
-
Goodness, you're pathetic. I can see there's no way to rid you of your ignorance.
-
How am I pathetic? For having not conforming to the pothead hivemind?! lel. You don't even address what I said wrong...is it out of fear? or just pure desperation? or are you just high and can't think straight lol
-
Give me a moment, and I'll post a bunch of sources. Also, don't call me a pothead, because I've never smoked cannabis in my life.
-
Sorry, I just assumed the worst lol. And I'll wait.
