At 12/9/09 02:51 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: just use leftover embryonic stem cells from IVF ffs they get thrown out anyway

If I remember correctly you can clone stem cells by placing them on mouse uterine cells, they'll just divide & multiply.

The only people who you'll find who believe stem cell research is immoral are people who believe life begins at conception, as most stem cells do come from in vitro fertilization.

What should the government provide for free?

Water, health care, & birth control.

And now Texans are worried as they have no right to get married, afterall everyone deserves rights unless they're gay, right?

Bush got everyone to hate Republicans.

First black president sounded good.

He is intelligent, very articulate, an excellent orator.

He wasn't an old man who could have a coronary at any time & didn't choose a vice president not qualified to run a Dairy Queen.

At 11/24/09 06:19 AM, Korriken wrote:

Taking the deficit from 17 billion dollars a year too 1.3 trillion dollars a year.

2 wars will do that to you.

Entering two wars & cutting taxes would do that, everyone with any brain knows that it's better to pay as you go rather than rely on credit, this doesn't change for government & doesn't change for war.

The 1.35 trillion dollar tax cut, that pretty much did nothing.

proof?

Proof that he cut taxes or that it barely did anything do anything?

"Enhanced interrogation techniques"

They worked, didn't they?

Did they? There is no evidence that they did & even if they did, does that justify them? Not to mention it harmed world opinion of us, giving the terrorists a recruiting tool & thus exacerbating the very situation they were meant to alleviate.

At 11/24/09 10:29 PM, Korriken wrote:

I just can't imagine the situation a lot of people seem to take. It's not like Bush had a hand in fabricating false evidence.

You sure about that

Starting the Iraq war under faulty intelligence.

Stem cell veto.

Patriot act , to be fair I have to blame all but one member of congress for this as well.

Taking the deficit from 17 billion dollars a year too 1.3 trillion dollars a year.

The 1.35 trillion dollar tax cut, that pretty much did nothing.

No child left behind, I have a long list of problems resulting from that policy.

"Enhanced interrogation techniques"

There's more but those are the major problems.

The goth kid?

So, a measure is being put though that would make insurance companies pay for faith healing? That is just sad, extremely sad

At 11/2/09 06:44 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 11/2/09 05:25 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 11/2/09 03:10 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: and you're saying that islamic terrorism ISN'T a good reason?

There's no good reason for warrantless wiretapping. We've dealt with THIS SAME GROUP before and under Clinton we didn't expand government power this much.

yeah, look how that turned out. if weak-ass clinton had cared more about safety than BJs, he could have adequately prepared us for the attack.

There IS NO REASON TO SUSPEND WARRANTS!!

by that logic, there's no reason to declare war, imprison criminals, or censor extreme opinions (e.g. if bin laden were to appear on CNN)

You can get a warrant to tap a guys phone? Fine, that's within the legal framework I find acceptable. But to tap anyone at any time because they MIGHT be a terrorist? No way, it's unnecessary, it's using people's fear to expand your own governmental power.

dude, if they suspect you might be a terrorist, it's for a reason.

Or it isn't, if we forgo the warrent then why not just tap people at random or tap every person at all times.

this is a crisis, i would much rather perfer to have the government listen in on my calls than to experience 9/11 all over again.

I would rather another 9/11 happen again, if it weren't for the fact that it would just give another reason to strip us of our rights.

why do you think they don't even mention catching Bin Laden or terrorism that much anymore? Because he's a useful bogeyman to scare people like you into letting the government intrude into their lives and suspend their liberties.

no, it's because there are more pressing issues to deal with right now. bin laden is off the radar, when he gets back on it we'll shove a nuke up his ass, but until then we have bigger problems.

Actually it's because he's well funded & well supported, we tried to catch him in the 8 years prior to 9/11 &failed we failed the 9 8 years after 9/11.

also, other than the "OMG, THEY'RE TAKING OUR RIGHTS" hysteria, how does wiretapping actually effect us in any way, at all?

The government can (WILL) tap phones for any reason, even when they are not in use, save any information gathered & could use said information to silence dissenters.

These are powers the government wanted for years, 9/11 just gave them a situation where people would role over for it.

oh, please. it's one thing to say "bush wanted it", but the entire government?

There is only one reason people desire pwer, so they may accuire more power, that is the ultimate goal of any powerful man or organization.

with the exception of nixon, none of those had anything to do with wiretapping. and nixon was busted before he could misuse the information he had gathered.

But it proves my point about how you cannot trust the government to always do the right thing.

no, you can't, but 99 times out of 100, they really do have the best intentions. that's not to say that i ALWAYS agree with them, but once again, i perfer to give them the benefit of the doubt in such a time.

That was my thesis, you're point was you felt you could trust the government, I showed you why you shouldn't.

you didm't "show" anything, you're just taking a few examples and overblowing them.

P.S. what have you got against gitmo?

Oh come on...torture,

they earned their ticket the milisecond they decided to start hijacking planes.

Even though most of those tortured didn't have anything to do with 9/11?

suspension of due process

there, you have a point, we always need habeus corpus.

that place is like giving people like Osama a Christmas present because they use that to help their recruiting drives. "see? See? Americans torture our brothers and violate their own rules and supposed morals...surely now you see how evil they are and that they must be destroyed?". I don't want to become an animal in order to stop animals, and I have never heard a persuasive reason as to why we need to do so.

we are not the ones gunning down civilians in the streets or suicide-bombing skyscrapers. but if, to prevent it, we have to use unorthodox treatment of prisoners that, according to the geneva convention, don't even qualify as legal combatants, then be it.

no, it doesn't. it proves that there's occasionally gonna be one person who isn't trustworthy.

These were all Presidents and most of their immediate staff's implicated. They are what people think of when they think of the government.

no, people think of the CURRENT president when they think of the government. not some asshole from ancient history.

People think of the next president & the one after that.

If you were/are suspected of terrorism, you're rights disappear. How does that NOT violate or take away from our core rights?

because unless your idea of a good time invovles bombs and infidels, it doesn't affect you AT ALL!

MY idea of a good time involves (vodka) bombs & infidels,That aside; being suspected of something doesn't actually make it so.

it's not a loss of privacy, it's a desperate measure. if we had done this before 9/11, we may have had a shot at preventing it.

Some one explain how someone could at any time be listening in, on any conversation one has on (or near) a phone, & that wouldn't be an invasion of privacy?

alright, let me put it this way: let's say that every phone in america is tapped and listened to, what's the worst that could happen that DIRECTLY results from that?

Information could be gathered & used against you.

i don't consider that to be an essential right, i consider it to be a privilage, a reward for a time of peace and prosperity. but until then, it is a very small price to pay in return for protection of my OTHER essential rights #1 being the right to life.

Are we not in a time of reasonable peace & prosperity now? I mean last I checked our country wasn't under attack, so, under what circumstances would this privilege be given back?

Or even extending the rule to looking for people who are just basically dissenters to the government?

because there's plenty of dissent nowadays, if they were gonna do something, they would have already.

It will be done or at least attempted eventually. You seem to be assuming that, for some reason the laws should only be considered for the present & not the future as well, remember If we fail to think of the implications of any action, the unintended consequences will bite us in the ass, & you're asking us to ignore this? Remembering "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" Thomas Jefferson, you want us to forget what harm may & will be caused by this action in the future, for a thin veil of security ?

i'd rather a "potential" threat from the US government, than a very real threat from islamic extremism.

That very real threat is just a potential threat as well.

Because this is such a vague "emergency" and there's absolutely no indication they will stop doing it ever, in fact all they've shown is they want even MORE power in this and other such sensitive areas.

that doesn't mean that they're gonna misuse it.

The fact that they'll be able to misuse it guarantees they'll misuse it. People with power use that power for any reason that suits their purpose, what guarantee can you offer that this power wont be misused, other than the, I trust the government stance? Is there any system that could be set up to insure that this power is not misused?

At 11/3/09 12:34 AM, jarrydn wrote:
A flashback is simply a memory of the experience. You might, for a couple of seconds, see the walls breathe slightly, or see sound, or have an unusual shift of consciousness, but that's only a result of being primed to the experience.

That's incorrect a flashback is a weak hallucinogenic experience,they tend to last for a few minutes too just under an hour. No one knows WTF causes them but my mom has them & you do have a weak trip when you have a flash back.

That aside does anyone else think it's funny that all you have to do to cause an uproar in England is state the fucking obvious?

At 11/1/09 03:49 PM, pyromaniac616 wrote: Dress up as a giant badger, cut out eyeholes and just stare at him. He will think he is on drugs again.

Belay that last statement.

At 11/1/09 03:37 PM, Darmealea wrote: I need GOOD suggestions, shit hits the fan as of tomorrow.

All the suggestions I've read have been good. MY opinion a preemptive ass beating works.

At 10/30/09 11:55 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: NO, no no. The movement itself is called the Tea Party after the Boston Tea Party, but it isn't an actual Political Party. I'm just trying to emphasize that this should be the Tea (Political) Party when you say Tea Party. I put the brackets around the P to emphasize that this was a Party and not a party, if you understand my meaning.

The tea party actually is a political party, they split from the Libertarian party, in 06.

At 10/31/09 09:17 AM, CloudEater wrote: Hallucinogenic drugs include... LSD (Lysergic Acid), Psilocybin mushrooms, PCP (Phencyclidine), Cannabis/Marijuana, and probably a few others...

Cannabis is not a hallucinogen.

What are your thoughts on these drugs?

I don't know about PCP, but for psilocybin &LSD , I think they have excellent potential for use in behavior modification.

Are these drugs really that much worse than alcohol and tobacco?

In regards to intoxication, yes, excluding cannabis of course & IDK about PCP

Should these drugs be taken more seriously?

Seriously how? Like I said I think, many hallucinogens have potential in psychiatric use, & they're generally not that dangerous.

Do you really care if people consume these drugs?

Yes, I would like it if more people tried these drugs.

What are you doing tomorrow night? etc....

Mind your business.

I watch Fox news for the same reason, I used to watch Jerry Springer.

At 10/23/09 01:57 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/22/09 07:09 AM, pr0ded wrote: and one can bring up dutch drug policy
http://www.csdp.org/ads/dutch2.htm

Because that's not a biased source or anything...

Okay so go to the original sources \.

"Source U.S.: National Household Survey 1997 SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, Washington, DC.
Source the Netherlands: M. Abraham, P. Cohen, M. DeWinter; Licit and Illicit drug use in the Netherlands,
Center for Drug Research, University of Amsterdam. "

The numbers match. Or are you accusing SAMHSA & the University of Amsterdam biased?

I don't know some of these tea baggers seem pretty stupid, just stupid enough to start a revolt they can't win, but you're probably right it wouldn't happen.

At 10/12/09 04:57 PM, Diederick wrote:

I understand your points, but there is a perfectly fine reason why most drugs are illegal: because they're bad for you. This is why you can't just get a random medicine at the apothecary and why bridges have railings: because you could harm yourself. Wherever possible, the government tries (like it should) to protect you, in a reasonable way.

Don't be naive if that we're true we'd outlaw everything more dangerous than illegal drugs, like fast food, driving, alcohol, tobacco, etc...

With the exception of heroin & few other exceptions, That's not the reason most drugs are illegal, cannabis is illegal for cooperate & racial reasons (originally), & most other drugs were originally made illegal, on the federal level as a way to attack hippies, there are a few reasons we continue prohibition. One reason is every federal agency/bureau receives funding for it, another reason is the economic benefit from having a huge artificially inflated market for these drugs, there are a few more reasons but those are the main ones.
If you insist that it's because they're dangerous then I'd have to ask why cannabis is still a schedule one substance even though the Institute of Medicine believes it to have medical value, or why MDMA is a schedule one even though most experts involved in the hearings recommended it be placed under schedule three? For that matter why is the task of scheduling drugs placed in the hands of law enforcement instead of medical professionals?

Drugs are addictive and harmful to your body. People should be discouraged to use drugs, making them illegal is one way of doing that; one could also think of taking away certain (free) health-care benefits or place high taxes on the substances.

The law isn't a way to do that as legislation has been shown to be completely ineffective, & placing high taxes (depending on the definition of high) could just lead to a black market for them, to be honest for most drugs the best rout is education it's the most cost effective & a moderate vice tax on these substances, just look at what those two methods did to the smoking rate.

At 10/12/09 04:51 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 10/12/09 03:13 PM, TheStonePilot wrote: 'Hey kids, Suicide is cool, it's your choice! Go get 'em!'

it should probably be noted that suicide isn't illegal.

In some counties in the US it is still a misdemeanor offense, how you punish someone for suicide I don't know but that's the law.

While I believe that we should have reasonably lax gun control, it should be noted that the second amendment has not been incorporated against the states, IE the supreme court is as of yet undecided if this amendment should apply to indavidual state government as well as the federal government.

I have to ask, is there anyone else who wants these right wingers to try, just so they can be squashed & our collective intelligence quotient can go up a half point or so? Or am I just one mentally fuct son of a bitch?

At 10/11/09 06:27 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/11/09 05:23 PM, MaidenHeaven wrote: There really isn't a point to some drugs being illegal. From person experience, mushrooms and weed aren't even bad.

Had to stop you there. Weed is one thing, but the fact that hallucinogens like shrooms have the chance to cause flashbacks at random intervals down the road does not speak well for their legalization. I would hate to see what would happen if we had guys in the armed forces or law enforcement suddenly seeing pink elephants and zombies all over the place..

Do you have a source for psilocybin causing flash back or HPPD, I ask because I have never seen any research on the subject nor have I ever heard of someone getting psilocybin flash backs. That & in my youth used excessive amounts, & my mother has acid flash back so I kind of want to know if I'm at risk.
Also I ask because you referred to hallucinogens which is a very general term.

At 10/12/09 03:30 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/11/09 10:30 PM, pr0ded wrote: sure, like calling artists and scientists 'druggies'

...except that the co-workers I was referring to would call themselves druggies, and were mostly more or less average guys. Most of them were your average college students - not particularly cerebral or artistic, but otherwise solid guys save for their addictions. Maybe it doesn't fit the paradigm that you're looking for, but I think it represents a more realistic take on the demographics involved in the issue; I sincerely doubt you could name one case of a scientist actually being better for his substance abuse.

What region are you from? I ask because where I'm from "druggie" is a derogatory term, the use of which is liable to get one popped in the mouth. Most people prefer to be called stoner or psychonaut.

Most of them were your average college students - not particularly cerebral or artistic, but otherwise solid guys save for their addictions. Maybe it doesn't fit the paradigm that you're looking for, but I think it represents a more realistic take on the demographics involved in the issue;

In my experience illegal drug use doesn't have a particular demographic except for age, people from all walks of life use drugs, but younger people are far more likely to use drugs. It's widely believed that more intelligent people are more likely to use drugs, as it is also widely believed that intelligence has a positive correlation to depression, but that neither here nor there.

:...I sincerely doubt you could name one case of a scientist actually being better for his substance abuse.

One thing to remember
Use %u2260 Abuse
Though it could not be proven one must ask; would Freud have been as successful if it weren't for his use of cocaine? Does the altering of thought processes not occasionally lead to a new (and correct) concept? Those are just musing questions though. One quote though

"There is a myth about such highs: the user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error, and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights"
Mr. X AKA Carl Sagan from Marihuana Reconsidered

I hope to gods you're not serious but just incase

Studmuffin47, it's not an issue of them being uneducated, it's an issue of you being fuctarded, If you want to say you don't care what happens because they're prostitutes then say that. But considering people are discussing policy, stating they broke the law they deserve it is bumfuck retarded .

Also not everyone who uses the services of prostitutes does so because they can't get laid otherwise.

On the subject at hand I see no reason these women & men who preform these services should be punished in anyway, There is no victim & the only possible reason to outlaw it other than morality is disease control , & there exists no evidence outlawing it helps prevent disease, it may even make matters worse.

At 8/11/09 04:01 AM, TightRope wrote: Driving drunk? You don't have to submit to a sobriety/alco-brether test, take the 24 hours in jail and pay to get your car out of the impound lot or pay $30,000 for a DUI

That's true but the cops can also claim you slurred your speech & what not, the solution to this is don't talk, hand them your ID get out of your car & lock the door if the cops ask you to take the breathalyzer just shake your head, Also your license can be suspended for doing this. (you sign a contract when you get it stating you'll comply with either a breathalyzer or blood analysis in some states you get to pick, pick the Blood you can sober up on the way to the hospital to take it)

threaten to call your attorney, cops are intimidated by this and take it that you're well off and are going to lose them their job.

Cops are not intimidated by someone saying they'll call there lawyer.

No, you may not search me! Cops have no rights to search your person, just say no, keep all contraband hidden in your car, if a cop asks to search it say no, same with your house.

They do have the right to do a weapons pat down, but yes if you state you do not consent anything that could not be construed as a weapon is inadmissible as evidence

Arrests?! If you are arrested and the cop doesn't read you your Miranda rights, you're off the hook completely!

That's only true for a felony arrest.

Plead Nolo! It cuts whatever crime you committed in half, killed someone and facing death? Plead Nolo! You only get one every five years.

Pleading no contest does not in anyway guarantee a shorter sentence

Never be silent! Always argue back, cops are dumb, the law is dumb, judges are dumb, always argue back and threaten with convincing legal action and you will always be let off the hook.

Unless the cops/judges know you're full of shit & can't afford a lawer.

I don't know, if I remember correctly the US had stealth bombers & smart bombs at that point & that's forgoing the nuclear scenario were we launch then they launch (though Russia's ballistic technology wasn't all to great) overall I'd say that NATO would win due to air superiority.

At 7/26/09 09:37 AM, GLaDOSKitten wrote: The main reason marijuana has not been legalized like everywhere is because it is one of the main triggers for schizophrenia, depression and bi-polar.

To my understanding a schizophrenia has been correlated with frequent use at a young age & a genetic predisposition that 80% of people don't have, so this is a reason for legalization & regulation.
When it comes to depression to my understanding there is only a correlation to cannabis use & depression though I don't rule out that frequent cannabis use may cause depression for some individuals it's more likely that the converse is true IE depression leads to cannabis use.
The same is true of bipolar disorder an additional fact that people often don't realize is that bipolar disorder is often times a misdiagnoses for a disease with the exact same symptoms but to a lesser extent, called Human Existence Syndrome or HES for short.

At 7/27/09 05:39 AM, GLaDOSKitten wrote:
""New research being conducted here and abroad illustrates that marijuana use, particularly during the teen years, can lead to depression, thoughts of suicide, and schizophrenia," said White House Drug Czar John P. Walters. "This press conference is a public health warning."

Are you actually quoting John Walters, listening to John Walters talk about drugs is like listening to a creationist talk about the big bang theory, he's an idiot who's never won a debate on the subject ,lies out his ass, & quit frankly it's common knowledge you just can't trust someone with a perma-scowl

Another study highlighted by officials, published in 2001, suggested that people who were not depressed but used marijuana were four times more likely to develop depression years later than those who never used the drug." - http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/
20050503/federal-report-marijuana-causes -mental-illness?src=rss_foxnews

I distrust any source that even mentions faux news, but that aside this article states a correlation with teen use & thus is a reason to legalize & regulate.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn30 98-cannabis-link-to-mental-illness-stren gthened.html

Once again use at age 15 correlated with depression & schizophrenia is a reason to REGULATE

http://www.theantidrug.com/pdfs/MARIJUAN A_AND_MENTAL.pdf

SO I'm supposed to trust a paper provided by an oblivious propaganda site & commissioned under the authority of John Walters? No good sir I think not.

Its taught in psychology classes as a fact. Its accepted by the academic community.
And even if there were doubt, considering the serious nature of these illnesses it is in the public interest to keep marijuana ileagal.

Incorrect sir for the reasons I have already pointed out as well as many others.

Though, I am not against marijuana, Im a casual smoker myself, I just like to know facts about what I do and what the risks are.

I commend you for this sir.

I live in a city where every one & their uncle owns or wants to own a pitbull even if they know jack about training a dog, don't have the time to train a dog, don't have living condition fit for pitbull (I live in a small apartment building w/ tiny 2 bedroom apartments only & still people here think it's a good idea to own a pit). As for there nature pitbulls tend to be more aggressive , are powerful fkn dogs, & have a very strong fight reaction , I heard somewhere that when enraged a pit releases enough adrenalin to kill a man six times over (doubt it's true but wouldn't be surprised if it was), really I think banning pits is a bad idea but idiots keep getting them, & thinking "oh pits are good dogs it's just nature verses nurture" forgetting that nature is a constant & that if you can't nurture it right you shouldn't own it.

At 7/14/09 08:06 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 7/14/09 07:54 AM, platypuspwn wrote: I think Homosexuality is an abomination, so I don't like either.

I think that eating shellfish is an abomination.

And that my freinds is why I can never be a christian.

At 6/27/09 10:51 AM, lVlad wrote: Thats the bad part of buddhism. They tell you to just do little by little and in your next life you will be closer to nirvana. Its the stupid carrot on the stick with the donkey trick. Wake up people!

Their teaching the middle path, that you have to use moderation, how is that bad?

At 6/28/09 08:17 PM, lVlad wrote: th which I did mention is the same thing as the middle way. The 8 folded path is a way of living which is designed to quiet your mind and change your moral values. I am not against this but life is not as much fun with highs and lows. Also, it is extremely narrow minded to strictly follow the 8 folded path. The 8 folded path is combined with the 4 noble truths.

Eight fold path

I hope I remember this

Right mind
Right speech
Right effort
Right work
Right intent
Nope don't remember them all have to copypast
Right Action
Right concentration
Right view

So in which one contains the middle way ? None do, the middle way is to be used a a guide when walking this path, contrary to what you read that is what the middle path means to do so in moderation

The 4 noble truths employ a common cult tactic. They break down your identity.

Four noble truths simplified
There is suffering
Suffering is caused by attachment
there is a way to end the suffering
The eight fold path is that way

How does that break you down?

In orthodox buddhism, your self doesnt really exist. Your just a combination of senses, the annata doctrine.

Two problems- without a permanent self, your consciousness cannot be reborn

Well hears a problem you're only using one sect of Buddhism, it's like saying Christianity's BS because Latter Day Saints have a belief that doesn't makes sense to you. Also I was lead to believe the annanta doctrine states that your conciseness is not permanent because it changes it does continue existing but not as the same conciseness you had when you died.
(in essence it's the belief your soul is not a part of you its part of the world & constantly evolving)

your ego or "I" is always there from the time you are born. your mind changes but you always identify with this body.

I assume by ego/I you refer to ones sense of self that being said I still don't understand your' point.

At 6/28/09 08:24 PM, lVlad wrote:

At 6/28/09 08:19 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: You havent been a buddist just read some shit about it.

Thats as bad as the muslims saying that apostates were never true muslims. It appears all these western "buddhists" cannot keep their anger under control. Why? You need to be brainwashed from an early age for it to be completely effective. I am willing to debate over PM.

Uhm no if your raised in it your not brainwashed, brainwashing implies you eliminate the preexisting mind to build a new one if your young it's more accurately indoctrination. You are indoctrinated into certain beliefs regardless of the environment you're raised in this is simply do to the fact we're social creatures.

At 6/29/09 10:11 AM, lVlad wrote: I read some of the replies which try to make good of buddhism. Several problems with buddhism-

1. You cannot discipline your mind to the point of stopping desire. In order to reach nirvana you have to stop desire and get rid of false notions of self (annata doctrine). Desire is physically forced upon you. Unless you remove Dopamine and Serotonin and the Mesolimbic and Striatum regions of your brain, your gonna desire something.

Attachment is a better term & it refers ones attachments to the material world, you can train your mind to a degree to lessen these attachments. Really christianity teaches against materialism as well though to a lesser extent but I'm sure it's a common spiritual belief in most religions & many philosophies.

2. The buddha taught that the self does not exist. We are 5 senses and we have a mind. All of these change, therefore we cannot accurately claim identity or "I". However, our identity is our mental concept of identify with our body. Yes our body changes. But our concept of identifying with our body, our one brain, never goes away until death.

To my understanding (I may be wrong) the concept of no-self is in essence that there is no permanent self, rather one's self changes frequently yes we have but one body (per life?) but the body & mind change frequently that's why there is no self, it's in essence the answer to an old question "are you the same person you were 5 minutes ago?" the answer is always no you are constantly changing & thus you have no permanent self , also you forget that the mind extends beyond life

3. With no permanent self, there is no reason to even attempt to reach nirvana. Why? Because you will automatically reach nirvana when you die because your "I" or ego will never be reborn into another fetus. Orthodox buddhism denies a soul. It teaches the annata doctrine (no-self doctrine).

That would depend on how you define soul , if you allow a definition that would fit an ever changing consciousness then the budhist do believe in a soul.

4. The buddha taught his philosophy but at the same time claimed that you should reject it if it does not apply to your logic. The problem is that he basically claims and hints around in texts that those who do not apply to his doctrines are ignorant and will suffer in their next rebirth again and again.

Yes Gautama Buddha taught one should hold there own lamp, I can think of a number of reasons for doing so one being the possibility that the eightfold path is not the only path, & the texts don't hint it the cycle of rebirth if you fail to reach nirvana you'll be reborn & have to suffer. Also you keep referring to Buddha with out giving the name of the buddha which implies the first Gautama Buddha, My problem with this is that no accounts were written of Gautama Buddha for centuries after his death. Let allone by him as you seem to imply.

5. Karma is superstitious and stupid. The reason why buddhists act "moral" is to avoid bad karma.

Well if I told you the reason you act moral is because of the police, I think you'd take offense, for the most part people are moral by nature (also amoral by nature) also the whole reaching nirvana thing is another incentive even if it is superstitious. To be honest I liken this argument to saying "they only want to sell the cure for cancer to make money" who cares why they do it if there being moral their motivations aren't really the issue.

6. Buddhists are really selfish (which goes against buddhism). First of all, they act good in order to earn good Karma for themselves. Second, they try to help others out in order to fit the role of a bodhistiva (someone who delays their enlightenment to help others which increases your own chance of attaining nirvana in the future.) Buddhist monks are likely not aware they are selfish and repress all this in their mind.

Okay so doing good things & helping others is selfish now? Is it just because they follow a doctrine that states being unselfish is rewarded?

If you are a western buddhist you need to wake up. The reason why westerners drop out of buddhism so much is because they were not brainwashed with these ridiculous doctrines at a young age. Thus, they have common sense. Theres no reason to join buddhism to live a moderate life (something good buddhists dont do. they have their identity torn apart). It is not because easterners are superior.

You know I know someone who converted to Buddhism at 15 he's 29 still Buddhist, westerners probably drop out of Buddhism so much for the same reason we drop out of Christianity or any other religion so much, were not all to keen on following another's path, we all wish to hold our own lamps. Yes if were not indoctrinated into it we're more likely to drop out that's true for any religion or any intellectual or spiritual pursuit.

At 6/29/09 11:17 AM, FatJoe214 wrote: wow that's ghetto and i should know im ghetto my self thats pure grade A ghetto my good friend

Ya that's ghetto just 'cause the duct tape

At 6/29/09 11:20 AM, EyelessArchfiend wrote: The only thing that sucks is the gas mask. There are two small vents that blow into your eyes, so you need to keep them shut. We found it easier just to inhale from the hose and leave the mask off.

NO keep them open you need to see how milked it gets plus THC can be absorbed through soft tissues

Wouldn't it be better to rig a percolator instead of just using split chambers?