# Ouiji board: is it proof of an afterlife?



## jimity

With all the stories on the ouiji board I can't help but think that this thing is real and goes to show that there is some kind of spiritual dimension out there. Science tries to explain the board away as subconsious muscle movements is what cause that thing to move but then what about all the stories of seeing ghosts and dark figures and experiencing poltergeist activity?


----------



## Fanta can

Nah. It's just a Parker Brother's game. The game works because people like me are so desperate for supernatural stuff to be real that sometimes our brains play tricks on us.


----------



## JustThisGuy

LowKey said:


> Nah. It's just a Parker Brother's game. The game works because people like me are so desperate for supernatural stuff to be real that sometimes our brains play tricks on us.


Exactly what I was gonna say. Parker Bros. I mean, it was originally an original board until they copyrighted it.


----------



## Kevin001

I wish the board really did work. :sigh


----------



## SplendidBob

The boards functioning isn't a mystery. As for the poltergeists and ghosts etc, there are many more plausible explanations. Actually something being supernatural is way down on the list:

1. People are just making it up
2. People are being pranked
3. People are hallucinating 
4. People are seeing lighting effects
5. People are under the influence of drugs

and all the way down the list

x. People are seeing actual ghosts.

Its probability. You will only take the super low probability explanation if you really want there to be an afterlife.


----------



## minimized

People really believe in a stupid plastic board made by a board game manufacturer?


----------



## ugh1979

Ouija boards _appear_ to work due to the ideomotor effect.

That shows they are nonsense, and consequential apparent supernatural experiences are undoubtedly a result of the suggestible primed minds of the people who have been fooled by the ideomotor effects apparent indications.

/case closed.


----------



## blue2

Yes but your not supposed to mess around an lift the veil lots of bad un's on the other side no R.I.P for them


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> Ouija boards _appear_ to work due to the ideomotor effect.
> 
> That shows they are nonsense, and consequential apparent supernatural experiences are undoubtedly a result of the suggestible primed minds of the people who have been fooled by the ideomotor effects apparent indications.
> 
> /case closed.


But what about all the cases of people describing weird things happening like doors shutting by themselves, objects flying around a room, unexplained noises happening, finding out things they never knew such as secrets about others and all other weird stuff. These often include people who never even thought any of this stuff was real and go on to say they have no explanation for things like moving objects and for some strange reason still don't believe the board has anything to do with these things and try to dismiss it has mind tricks or someone playing a prank.

With so many people talking about their experiences with the board on the net I don't think all these people would just make stuff up or be fooling themselves. And I don't think a belief in something like spirits and an afterlife could cause a person or even a group of people to see a ghost or demon or to cause them to dissociate and throw an object across a room and think a spirit did it.


----------



## UnusualSuspect

It isn't any less of a board game than chess or snakes and ladders. Ouija board and proof should never be in the same sentence. It doesn't prove ****.


----------



## EmotionlessThug

Proof this is a simulation?

Leave it up to NASA to educate this world, and play god?


----------



## jimity

AwkwardUglyWeirdo said:


> It isn't any less of a board game than chess or snakes and ladders. Ouija board and proof should never be in the same sentence. It doesn't prove ****.


Do you mean that what people are saying about the board is complete and utter bs and doesn't prove **** about anything?


----------



## jimity

EmotionlessThug said:


> Proof this is a simulation?
> 
> Leave it up to NASA to educate this world, and play god?


Screw nasa. They've been caught editing ufo's out of their pictures.


----------



## AussiePea

jimity said:


> Do you mean that what people are saying about the board is complete and utter bs and doesn't prove **** about anything.


Correct.


----------



## Ashley123

The voices I heard after using one were very real in my opinion.


----------



## a degree of freedom

It's ok to have an experience you can't explain, and to refer to it as an experience you can't explain without going on to attribute explanations that defy physics and _can't_ be understood through physical inquiry.

In other words, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly prosaic explanation, _whether or not anyone knows what it is_.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> But what about all the cases of people describing weird things happening like doors shutting by themselves, objects flying around a room, unexplained noises happening, finding out things they never knew such as secrets about others and all other weird stuff. These often include people who never even thought any of this stuff was real and go on to say they have no explanation for things like moving objects and for some strange reason still don't believe the board has anything to do with these things and try to dismiss it has mind tricks or someone playing a prank.
> 
> With so many people talking about their experiences with the board on the net I don't think all these people would just make stuff up or be fooling themselves. And I don't think a belief in something like spirits and an afterlife could cause a person or even a group of people to see a ghost or demon or to cause them to dissociate and throw an object across a room and think a spirit did it.


You'd be surprised how easy it is to get groups of people to enter into highly suggestible states where such apparently supernatural experiences can happen. Derren Brown (a well known UK based illusionist, mentalist) sometimes performs shows where he can generate these kind of mental states in people, but unlike the charlatans that trick people into believing they are experiencing something supernatural, at the end he reveals what really happens and how they were psychologically duped. He just uses the human minds own tendency to apply natural or supernatural agency to just about anything, regardless of the truth.

If ouiji boards can cause supernatural events, then why don't they when ever anyone who studies their use with a scientific/sceptical position and methodology ever see them do so?


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Screw nasa. They've been caught editing ufo's out of their pictures.


Can you cite evidence for that?


----------



## ugh1979

senkora said:


> It's ok to have an experience you can't explain, and to refer to it as an experience you can't explain without going on to attribute explanations that defy physics and _can't_ be understood through physical inquiry.
> 
> In other words, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly prosaic explanation, _whether or not anyone knows what it is_.


Exactly. Unfortunately it's typical human nature to apply agency to everything rather than admit they don't know why something happened.


----------



## Strikn

The real mystery here is how on earth you could come to the conclusion that it could act as proof in any way.


----------



## Brawk Shady

I've heard a story where a group of people closed their eyes, and used a ouiji board and it still spelled ****. Of course the person could be lying, but I think a strict experiment similar to that would be interesting, nonetheless.


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> Can you cite evidence for that?







I get the feeling from that question that you don't believe in aliens.


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> If ouija boards can cause supernatural events, then why don't they when ever anyone who studies their use with a scientific/sceptical position and methodology ever see them do so?


Why should they also occur in those settings? If these are infact really spirits making things like doors slamming shut and objects floating about then it's not something that can nor should be repeatable nor scientifically studied like you expect it should be. And just exactly what are they studying or hope to find? It would just be a spirit coming from another dimension. That's all. It would have volition and so can choose to do whatever it wants. It isn't a robot nor under any obligation to show what it can do to prove anything. Perhaps our technology isn't advanced enough to detect or study these things.

Would you use one of those boards? I dare you to.


----------



## jimity

Strikn said:


> The real mystery here is how on earth you could come to the conclusion that it could act as proof in any way.


I'm not sure really. Maybe it's because people are saying they were communicating with deceased people.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> I get the feeling from that question that you don't believe in aliens.


That's your evidence?

Talk about credulity. :roll


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Why should they also occur in those settings? If these are infact really spirits making things like doors slamming shut and objects floating about then it's not something that can nor should be repeatable nor scientifically studied like you expect it should be. And just exactly what are they studying or hope to find? It would just be a spirit coming from another dimension. That's all. It would have volition and so can choose to do whatever it wants. It isn't a robot nor under any obligation to show what it can do to prove anything.


Ah so whenever anyone who isn't credulous and looking at it with a critical eye it doesn't happen? How convenient. :roll



> Perhaps our technology isn't advanced enough to detect or study these things.


I think it's just some humans aren't advanced enough to understand their delusion.



> Would you use one of those boards? I dare you to.


Of course. I don't believe in supernatural or superstitious crap so have no qualms doing anything that is allegedly supposed to invoke it.


----------



## jimity

> Ah so whenever anyone who isn't credulous and looking at it with a critical eye it doesn't happen? How convenient. :roll


Do you expect it to just like studying physics or chemistry.



> I think it's just some humans aren't advanced enough to understand their delusion.





> Of course. I don't believe in supernatural or superstitious crap so have no qualms doing anything that is allegedly supposed to invoke it.


I'd like to use one but I don't have the courage to mess around with something like this simply because I've read too many stories about evil spirits hanging around after using it and people's lives being messed up and don't want to find out if this thing is for real. But go for it if you think it's a load of crap :wink2:


----------



## Strikn

jimity said:


> I'm not sure really. Maybe it's because people are saying they were communicating with deceased people.


Anecdotal evidence hardly qualifies as proof for an afterlife, that's silly.


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> That's your evidence?
> 
> Talk about credulity. :roll


Oh ok perhaps most believe nasa sent people to the moon. Yet where's the evidence? Is it a handful of pics and a short clip of some guy bouncing around on the "moon" and the famous speech by neil armstrong. Why should people believe it when that's perhaps all the evidence they've got and that they said they went to the moon and a bunch of "moon" rocks. And the fact that there would probably be millions of planets in the universe and you perhaps think the only one with intelligent life is earth?

I suppose science expects people to just believe things exist because people look at them but once they stop looking they exist in some weird random state or that all possibilities exist in some other universes or that something as intelligent as human life evolved from bacteria. Bs.


----------



## jimity

Strikn said:


> Anecdotal evidence hardly qualifies as proof for an afterlife, that's silly.


I'm not saying 100% proof but perhaps... one must ask questions. If science is coming up with all these other dimensions then why can't people wonder what happens after dying. Maybe a part of them exists in one of these dimensions.


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> Exactly. Unfortunately it's typical human nature to apply agency to everything rather than admit they don't know why something happened.


Does that include scientists admitting not knowing how the pyramids were built with all the precision and such?


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> I think it's just some humans aren't advanced enough to understand their delusion.


Oh you think humans are really advanced do you? Gets me thinking about the pyramids and how to this day we still can't explain with certainty how they were built thousands of years ago. Could we build such things today with such precision? Or maybe you don't even believe they exist because they so far defy explaination and you need evidence for them before you believe they even exist.


----------



## Strikn

jimity said:


> I'm not saying 100% proof but perhaps... one must ask questions. If science is coming up with all these other dimensions then why can't people wonder what happens after dying. Maybe a part of them exists in one of these dimensions.


The multiverse theory is a theory and it doesn't really have anything to do with ghosts or after-life.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Do you expect it to just like studying physics or chemistry.


No it can be studied with simple cause and effect methodology.



> I'd like to use one but I don't have the courage to mess around with something like this simply because I've read too many stories about evil spirits hanging around after using it and people's lives being messed up and don't want to find out if this thing is for real. But go for it if you think it's a load of crap :wink2:


Are you scared of black cats walking in front of you and Friday the 13th as well?


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Oh ok perhaps most believe nasa sent people to the moon. Yet where's the evidence? Is it a handful of pics and a short clip of some guy bouncing around on the "moon" and the famous speech by neil armstrong. Why should people believe it when that's perhaps all the evidence they've got and that they said they went to the moon and a bunch of "moon" rocks.


Your just showing your own ignorance if you think that's all the evidence there is. Even if you don't trust the huge amount of evidence NASA can provide, there is plenty third party evidence.



> And the fact that there would probably be millions of planets in the universe and you perhaps think the only one with intelligent life is earth?


I'm not sure what that comment has to do with what we are discussing but no, statistically based I think there are probably many planets with life in the universe.



> I suppose science expects people to just believe things exist because people look at them but once they stop looking they exist in some weird random state or that all possibilities exist in some other universes or that something as intelligent as human life evolved from bacteria. Bs.


There's overwhelming evidence that supports us evolving from primitive life. Where do you think we came from?

Science can provide excellent evidence for its claims, otherwise it wouldn't make the claim. You can't say the same about your claims so why should anyone believe what you say? Anecdotal tales, fear of ghosts etc hardly make you a credible source.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Does that include scientists admitting not knowing how the pyramids were built with all the precision and such?


There is much know about how the pyramids were built. There are still some unknown building techniques that have been lost to time but so what? Why should we know everything they did? We've devised far more advanced alternative building techniques.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Oh you think humans are really advanced do you?


Advanced (aka intelligent) in respect of life forms we know of yes.



> Gets me thinking about the pyramids and how to this day we still can't explain with certainty how they were built thousands of years ago.


See my reply in the previous post.



> Could we build such things today with such precision?


Of course we can and we do every day. Far far more advanced and precise.



> Or maybe you don't even believe they exist because they so far defy explaination and you need evidence for them before you believe they even exist.


You're questioning if I believe the pyramids exist? :?


----------



## livetolovetolive

You know what, I kept passing over this topic intentionally. But heck it.

There is so much that we think we know about reality but there is also so much we don't know. Science is based on reproducible results. Results that depend on the common senses that we all have. What if there are people, special people, who have a higher sensory ability. That is, an ability to sense objective things which other less endowed people cannot.

The less endowed (scientists) dismiss the idea because they simply cannot experience it, with no knowledge of whether or not something objective is happening. They arrogantly presume superior knowledge because they can reason better. Reason is irrelevant in the face of objective evidence, even if they lack the ability to perceive that objective evidence.

I happen to know someone extremely well who has the ability to sense this subtle, yet objective evidence. I reasoned with them, tried to explain it all away using established ideas, but it doesn't reason away. In one particular instance, an experience was shared by the person I know, and another unusually perceptive person, while the dozen other people in the room experienced nothing.

They shared the same unique experience and gathered the same outlandish conclusions independently while other people experienced nothing. In the face of this I can simply dismiss it and call the person crazy (they are completely healthy) to keep my view of the world consistent, or I can accept that there are things about reality that we simply haven't scratched the surface of yet. It makes me uncomfortable, and I am unable to experience the evidence myself, but I am not arrogant/foolish enough to take my limitations and inabilities and use them as evidence to dismiss something as false.


----------



## livetolovetolive

I mean, how many people who proclaim this or that belief can confidently say they understand all of the science behind it? We depend on the uniquely special/gifted individuals to pore over the theories and determine that each detail is correct. Very few of us have the ability to fully understand and reproduce the elementals of very high level science.

That is, collectively, we take each others' word that this or that is correct because we lack the ability to examine/understand/validate it ourselves. Even the most knowledgeable person in a field will not understand the work of the most knowledgeable in another field. We place confidence in the gifted few to determine what is and isn't correct, and how we should interpret the world. So what if there are only a gifted few who can who can examine and validate these things? Should we ignore them simply because we are unable validate their ideas for ourselves?

What if sensory ability works the same way as intellectual comprehension? There are a few at the very top who can perceive extremely subtle events, just as there are a few at the top who can understand extremely difficult scientific theory. Now if an inexplicable event did objectively happen, what use to science is it if scientists can't perceive it? Obviously it would be useless to science. In this case science could be considered inhibiting to furthering our understanding of reality.


----------



## winterspell

livetolovetolive said:


> What if there are people, special people, who have a higher sensory ability. That is, an ability to sense objective things which other less endowed people cannot.
> 
> The less endowed (scientists) dismiss the idea because they simply cannot experience it, with no knowledge of whether or not something objective is happening. They arrogantly presume superior knowledge because they can reason better. Reason is irrelevant in the face of objective evidence, even if they lack the ability to perceive that objective evidence.


awesome theory


----------



## jimity

> Are you scared of black cats walking in front of you and Friday the 13th as well?


No.


----------



## jimity

> Even if you don't trust the huge amount of evidence NASA can provide, there is plenty third party evidence.


But without this third party evidence would you still believe them or would say you want more evidence for it? That's what i wanted to know: would you believe their claim or would you want evidence for it?



> I'm not sure what that comment has to do with what we are discussing but no, statistically based I think there are probably many planets with life in the universe


From you asking for evidence about nasa photoshopping ufos out of their photos I assumed you didn't believe in aliens and also some being able to build flying machines.



> There's overwhelming evidence that supports us evolving from primitive life. Where do you think we came from?


Aliens brought us here. But I'm supposed to believe we came from monkeys but then where did these monkeys come from? Let me guess was it bacteria? And where did the bacteria come from? And where's all the slowly evolving monkeys from monkey to human? And why is it that every other life form on earth is far behind in intelligence compared to humans? Why aren't there some monkeys that can talk like humans?



> Science can provide excellent evidence for its claims, otherwise it wouldn't make the claim.


So you believe that when you're not looking at something it doesn't exist, as if the particles it is made up of are just floating around waiting to pop into existence.


----------



## jimity

> Of course we can and we do every day. Far far more advanced and precise.


Are those the twin towers. I wonder what would happen if those planes hit the pyramids?



> You're questioning if I believe the pyramids exist? :?


With the way they were built with all these mathematical things that can be worked out from them I was wondering if you doubted they existed because the tech might have seemed ahead of their time.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> But without this third party evidence would you still believe them or would say you want more evidence for it? That's what i wanted to know: would you believe their claim or would you want evidence for it?


Yes I'd still believe them as they have provided enough evidence themselves.



> From you asking for evidence about nasa photoshopping ufos out of their photos I assumed you didn't believe in aliens


I don't believe aliens have visited this planet no.



> and also some being able to build flying machines.


Aliens building flying machines?



> Aliens brought us here.


That's a statement with no evidence for it and volumes against it.



> But I'm supposed to believe we came from monkeys but then where did these monkeys come from? Let me guess was it bacteria? And where did the bacteria come from? And where's all the slowly evolving monkeys from monkey to human? And why is it that every other life form on earth is far behind in intelligence compared to humans? Why aren't there some monkeys that can talk like humans?


You're really just embarrassing yourself now. You clearly don't have even the most basic understanding of evolution or natural history. Go ahead and read any website on how evolution works which will answer all those questions.



> So you believe that when you're not looking at something it doesn't exist, as if the particles it is made up of are just floating around waiting to pop into existence.


Why do you think I believe that? I don't. You're alluding to some quantum mechanical properties there but I'm pretty sure you are getting confused regarding something you've heard. Since you don't understand how evolution works then I seriously doubt you understand quantum mechanics!


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Are those the twin towers.


Why would you think I was speaking about two buildings that were built in the 70's? We've build at least tens of thousands of more advanced buildings since.



> I wonder what would happen if those planes hit the pyramids?


There would be a big hole in them.



> With the way they were built with all these mathematical things that can be worked out from them I was wondering if you doubted they existed because the tech might have seemed ahead of their time.


No I don't doubt there were skilled engineers and architects in antiquity. I think you're overstating how 'advanced' the pyramids are. There are a few mysteries on construction techniques but not so much in that it should be deemed to have been the work of aliens etc. That's just ridiculous, and a discredit to the skilled people of the time.


----------



## ugh1979

livetolovetolive said:


> You know what, I kept passing over this topic intentionally. But heck it.
> 
> There is so much that we think we know about reality but there is also so much we don't know. Science is based on reproducible results. Results that depend on the common senses that we all have. What if there are people, special people, who have a higher sensory ability. That is, an ability to sense objective things which other less endowed people cannot.
> 
> The less endowed (scientists) dismiss the idea because they simply cannot experience it, with no knowledge of whether or not something objective is happening. They arrogantly presume superior knowledge because they can reason better. Reason is irrelevant in the face of objective evidence, even if they lack the ability to perceive that objective evidence.
> 
> I happen to know someone extremely well who has the ability to sense this subtle, yet objective evidence. I reasoned with them, tried to explain it all away using established ideas, but it doesn't reason away. In one particular instance, an experience was shared by the person I know, and another unusually perceptive person, while the dozen other people in the room experienced nothing.
> 
> They shared the same unique experience and gathered the same outlandish conclusions independently while other people experienced nothing. In the face of this I can simply dismiss it and call the person crazy (they are completely healthy) to keep my view of the world consistent, or I can accept that there are things about reality that we simply haven't scratched the surface of yet. It makes me uncomfortable, and I am unable to experience the evidence myself, but I am not arrogant/foolish enough to take my limitations and inabilities and use them as evidence to dismiss something as false.





livetolovetolive said:


> I mean, how many people who proclaim this or that belief can confidently say they understand all of the science behind it? We depend on the uniquely special/gifted individuals to pore over the theories and determine that each detail is correct. Very few of us have the ability to fully understand and reproduce the elementals of very high level science.
> 
> That is, collectively, we take each others' word that this or that is correct because we lack the ability to examine/understand/validate it ourselves. Even the most knowledgeable person in a field will not understand the work of the most knowledgeable in another field. We place confidence in the gifted few to determine what is and isn't correct, and how we should interpret the world. So what if there are only a gifted few who can who can examine and validate these things? Should we ignore them simply because we are unable validate their ideas for ourselves?
> 
> What if sensory ability works the same way as intellectual comprehension? There are a few at the very top who can perceive extremely subtle events, just as there are a few at the top who can understand extremely difficult scientific theory. Now if an inexplicable event did objectively happen, what use to science is it if scientists can't perceive it? Obviously it would be useless to science. In this case science could be considered inhibiting to furthering our understanding of reality.


It's a nice idea that maybe there are people who can sense such things other can't, but there is no evidence that stands up to scrutiny for it being true. Yes some people claim to have these special sensory powers etc but it can't be called objective evidence since it's by nature entirely subjective, as they have no way of showing what they think they are sensing is real. It may seem very real to them but so do the voices and characters many schizophrenics experience for example.


----------



## Ameenah

It may be a game but its still an invitation for jinns to communicate with you. Stay off that sh*t. Only bad jinns communicate with humans.


----------



## jimity

> Yes I'd still believe them as they have provided enough evidence themselves.


So if all they provided was a few movie clips and a few pics and their word you'd believe them.



> I don't believe aliens have visited this planet no.


According to science didn't we all ultimately come from the stars so therefore we are all really aliens.



> Aliens building flying machines?


So you believe in aliens but not intelligent aliens that can build flying machines like humans.



> Why do you think I believe that? I don't. You're alluding to some quantum mechanical properties there but I'm pretty sure you are getting confused regarding something you've heard. Since you don't understand how evolution works then I seriously doubt you understand quantum mechanics!


I think you believe it because it's science and would have evidence for it to be spoken of and that's where your beliefs seem to come from. Scientific evidence.

I have heard it from a documentary on quantum physics and that's pretty much what they said. Can't understand why they would say something plain and simple like that only for it to be crap or to really mean something else.

Maybe it's because I've never read anything about evolution and not from lacking the mental ability to understand a topic.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> So if all they provided was a few movie clips and a few pics and their word you'd believe them.


No, as that wouldn't be sufficient evidence.



> According to science didn't we all ultimately come from the stars so therefore we are all really aliens.


That's not what you were suggesting though.



> So you believe in aliens but not intelligent aliens that can build flying machines like humans.


I think it's highly plausible there are intelligent aliens with flight technology. I don't think they have visited earth though.



> I think you believe it because it's science and would have evidence for it to be spoken of and that's where your beliefs seem to come from. Scientific evidence.
> 
> I have heard it from a documentary on quantum physics and that's pretty much what they said. Can't understand why they would say something plain and simple like that only for it to be crap or to really mean something else.


The idea that something doesn't exist if nobody is looking at it is an old quantum physics thought experiment/hypothesis (one of many), but it's not one I personally believe, as the observer that is needed for wave function collapse doesn't need to be a human observer. It can be anything in the universe that interacts with the wave function causing its collapse.



> Maybe it's because I've never read anything about evolution and not from lacking the mental ability to understand a topic.


So why don't you go and learn about it before saying you don't believe it?


----------



## EmotionlessThug

jimity said:


> Oh ok perhaps most believe nasa sent people to the moon. Yet where's the evidence? Is it a handful of pics and a short clip of some guy bouncing around on the "moon" and the famous speech by neil armstrong. Why should people believe it when that's perhaps all the evidence they've got and that they said they went to the moon and a bunch of "moon" rocks. And the fact that there would probably be millions of planets in the universe and you perhaps think the only one with intelligent life is earth?
> 
> I suppose science expects people to just believe things exist because people look at them but once they stop looking they exist in some weird random state or that all possibilities exist in some other universes or that something as intelligent as human life evolved from bacteria. Bs.


I agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man%27s_Sky

We're using the real creator AKA God technology, it's literally staring me right in the face.


----------



## RestlessNative

I believe in the power of the Ouija Board. But you guys don't and I don't feel like getting into a massive argument so


----------



## theotherone

i have more astral projection than anyone i known or seen on the streets.
....


is it proof? if that's the only way you see a sign, then thats weak... work on your spirit game, better than sin.


----------



## Dragonchild

ugh1979 said:


> Ouija boards _appear_ to work due to the ideomotor effect.


This. I don't think it means they're complete nonsense, but they shouldn't be assumed to be being moved by ghosts when a bunch of living people's hands are on the whatever it's called that you move around on a quija board. try this, take a string sometime, tie a ring or something to it, and start asking yourself yes or no questions. If you start out asking ones you know the answer to, you'll notice it moves one way for yes, or another way for no. It does the same thing for ones you don't know. Does that mean it's being moved by spooky ghosties or does it mean we know more about stuff than we're consciously aware of. Well the fact this works whether you ask yourself or any hypothetical boojums makes me think it's the second one. There's also the fact that it doesn't work if you nail the string to the ceiling and start asking questions.


----------



## twitchy666

*Parkers*

Trivial Pursuit?

Monopoly

I'm up for Ouija at Xmas

Remembering the layout

a serious alternative to qwerty keyboard, touchscreen...

moving the (pointer) with yer mind?


----------



## eukz

BS. Like religions, superstitions, paranormal activities, Karma, Santa, etc.


----------



## BAH

It be interesting if a group of people played this in a foggy forest at night.


----------



## Enkidu

RestlessNative said:


> I believe in the power of the Ouija Board. But you guys don't and I don't feel like getting into a massive argument so


That's the unfortunate irony of this debate: your personal belief is not going to be changed by the proofs of wiki stubs. Even if Ouiji boards are cultural appropriation out of context, made relevant by pop culture, and thus a _significant_ connection to the supernatural by those that take it at face value.

:wink2:


----------



## fredbloggs02

I watched an show called "Seance" by Derren Brown, which dealt with the subject of unconscious fraud. Derren gathers together a group of youngsters interested in spirituality. The phenomena they experience under his instruction are visceral and frightening. Obviously, a black raven is not proof that all ravens are black, but a thrilling watch.


----------



## NuthinSimple

Psychologically you have two choices. Keep your hand still until you don't feel like playing anymore and remove it from the table, or keep your hand still until your mind gets bored of it and moves it subconsciously


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> I watched an show called "Seance" by Derren Brown, which dealt with the subject of unconscious fraud. Derren gathers together a group of youngsters interested in spirituality. The phenomena they experience under his instruction are visceral and frightening. Obviously, a black raven is not proof that all ravens are black, but a thrilling watch.


I wouldn't have had you down as a fan of Derren Brown since he's such an active sceptic and debunker of the supernatural, but glad to hear you are.


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> I wouldn't have had you down as a fan of Derren Brown since he's such an active sceptic and debunker of the supernatural, but glad to hear you are.


Did you take up my ouiji board challange?


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Did you take up my ouiji board challange?


I didn't know you have challenged me. What is the challenge?


----------



## Cascades

I used an ouiji board once before. I still can't explain how when my friend took his hand off the pointer thing and I had one finger on it, it moved around the board. It still trips me out to this day. I'd like to use it again but I've heard some stories about some pretty bad things happening. I guess I got lucky.


----------



## rawrguy

I definitely believe in the supernatural and had a few experiences myself. I was a skeptic for a while too.


----------



## ugh1979

rawrguy said:


> I definitely believe in the supernatural and had a few experiences myself. I was a skeptic for a while too.


What experiences lead you to believe?


----------



## rawrguy

ugh1979 said:


> What experiences lead you to believe?


A few times doors have moved without any explanation. No wind to move them. Nobody moving them on the other side. Nothing. Tried to rationalize it, but I couldn't really think of anything. Plus I'm Catholic so I'm prone to believing in such things. Just comes with the religion.

Don't have to agree with me, just how I feel.


----------



## ugh1979

rawrguy said:


> A few times doors have moved without any explanation. No wind to move them. Nobody moving them on the other side. Nothing. Tried to rationalize it, but I couldn't really think of anything. Plus I'm Catholic so I'm prone to believing in such things. Just comes with the religion.
> 
> Don't have to agree with me, just how I feel.


I have inside doors which move themselves as well but I rationalise it due to knowing that the forces involved in a door hanging from hinges means stress can exist in the hinge which will be released either slowly with the door slowly closing to relieve the stress, or the door suddenly moving to relieve the stress. The latter need not happen straight away. It can build up until a certain stress threshold is met and then it will happen.


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> I didn't know you have challenged me. What is the challenge?


I dared you to use one to see if anything would happen and you said you have no qualms about using one.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> I dared you to use one to see if anything would happen and you said you have no qualms about using one.


I see. You said, "I dare you", which isn't exactly the same as officially challenging me to it. As I say though, I'd have no problem with doing it, just as I haven't had a problem with it in the past. (Tried it a few times about 20 years ago)

If you want to make arrangements for me to do this challenge I'll happily do it. 

I have zero qualms about doing anything someone deems occult (as long as it's legal!), since I don't believe in it so have absolutely nothing to fear.


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> I see. You said, "I dare you", which isn't exactly the same as officially challenging me to it. As I say though, I'd have no problem with doing it, just as I haven't had a problem with it in the past. (Tried it a few times about 20 years ago)
> 
> If you want to make arrangements for me to do this challenge I'll happily do it.
> 
> I have zero qualms about doing anything someone deems occult (as long as it's legal!), since I don't believe in it so have absolutely nothing to fear.


Well you say you've already used one so no real point but did anything weird happen?

As long as it's legal? You use drugs which are illegal so what's the issue?


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Well you say you've already used one so no real point but did anything weird happen?


No, nothing has ever happened, but if there was any mysterious movement I'd put it down to the ideomotor effect, which is the well documented reason how ouija boards 'work'.



> As long as it's legal? You use drugs which are illegal so what's the issue?


Just because one thing is illegal, (one which arguably shouldn't be in the case of drugs), doesn't necessarily mean something else that is illegal should be done without issue.

I bet you've done plenty minor things which are illegal (going over the speed limit etc) but surely that doesn't necessarily mean you think something else illegal is fair enough to do?


----------



## rawrguy

ugh1979 said:


> I have inside doors which move themselves as well but I rationalise it due to knowing that the forces involved in a door hanging from hinges means stress can exist in the hinge which will be released either slowly with the door slowly closing to relieve the stress, or the door suddenly moving to relieve the stress. The latter need not happen straight away. It can build up until a certain stress threshold is met and then it will happen.


I'm no physicist, but that does not explain doors suddenly violently shaking. Nor from sitting completely still to going wide open. It's not like there is a time release on these doors... Doors could be symbolic to the other worldly forces.


----------



## ugh1979

rawrguy said:


> I'm no physicist, but that does not explain doors suddenly violently shaking. Nor from sitting completely still to going wide open. It's not like there is a time release on these doors... Doors could be symbolic to the other worldly forces.


Sitting still to going completely open happens frequently on some doors. Every time I leave my house I leave one of my doors almost shut, and everyday when I get home it's wide open. Do I think it's something supernatural? Of course not. It's in line with what I said earlier.

Doors violently shaking is more interesting, but I'm sure if you got someone less credulous than you to observe it happening they would find a rational reason for why it is happening.

Some people are far too quick to assume the supernatural for actions they don't understand. It seems humans evolved a tendency to look for agency in line with our need and ability to formulate reasons for events. Humans are also typically terrible at establishing what the actual agency at work is without the application of scientific method to analyse it.


----------



## rawrguy

ugh1979 said:


> Sitting still to going completely open happens frequently on some doors. Every time I leave my house I leave one of my doors almost shut, and everyday when I get home it's wide open. Do I think it's something supernatural? Of course not. It's in line with what I said earlier.


Do you live alone? If you do, that certainly is. Just sayin.



> Doors violently shaking is more interesting, but I'm sure if you got someone less credulous than you to observe it happening they would find a rational reason for why it is happening.
> 
> Some people are far too quick to assume the supernatural for actions they don't understand. It seems humans evolved a tendency to look for agency in line with our need and ability to formulate reasons for events. Humans are also typically terrible at establishing what the actual agency at work is without the application of scientific method to analyse it.


Science does certainly explain a lot, but not EVERYTHING. You can not scientifically explain supernatural forces such as God or spirits. Look, we could literally argue about this subject until we are very old. Let us just agree to disagree because it is becoming a pointless argument and is just giving me a massive headache.


----------



## ugh1979

rawrguy said:


> Do you live alone? If you do, that certainly is. Just sayin.


I do live alone, but what do you mean by "that certainly is"? Do you mean certainly is the rational reason I gave or certainly the supernatural reason you advocate?



> Science does certainly explain a lot, but not EVERYTHING. You can not scientifically explain supernatural forces such as God or spirits.


Since there is no credible evidence for God or spirits, they aren't really in the remit of science any more than the actuality of Harry Potter is, as you can't experimentally demonstrate a negative. This is why the topic is absent from pretty much all scientific literature, just as fairies are. However, we can always use science to analyse the credibility for the actual of such claims, and that's very important to shaping an intellectually honest world-view rather than one based on credulity and/or cognitive bias.



> Look, we could literally argue about this subject until we are very old. Let us just agree to disagree because it is becoming a pointless argument and is just giving me a massive headache.


Indeed we could, and I love debating it, hence why I've been discussing topics like this online and in person for over 20 years. I don't think it's a pointless argument at all. The more people are taken out of their comfort zone of beliefs and challenged to alternative ones the better. That's in general how we learn and progress.


----------



## NuthinSimple

Science can't explain supernatural forces because most of them are dreamed up. And science is a perpetual learning experience for us. There's some things we won't figure out for thousands of years and some things we never will. Just because we can't explain things doesn't mean the answer is god or supernatural. It means we don't know.


----------



## natsumeri

someone has probable said this but I won't believe the ouiji board is real until i see one that move complete on it own with no human interaction and no dim light to set the mood.


----------



## rawrguy

ugh1979 said:


> I do live alone, but what do you mean by "that certainly is"? Do you mean certainly is the rational reason I gave or certainly the supernatural reason you advocate?


Yeah, I actually do mean that what you are experiencing might be supernatural. Unless someone breaks into your home or you have a very bad memory. Did I blow your mind?



> Since there is no credible evidence for God or spirits, they aren't really in the remit of science any more than the actuality of Harry Potter is, as you can't experimentally demonstrate a negative. This is why the topic is absent from pretty much all scientific literature, just as fairies are. However, we can always use science to analyse the credibility for the actual of such claims, and that's very important to shaping an intellectually honest world-view rather than one based on credulity and/or cognitive bias.


There certainly is a huge difference between Harry Potter and religion. Harry potter is NOT a religion. Fairies may or may not exist in some religions, dunno not an expert in that field. There is science and philosophical reasoning in religion. For example, Catholic priests use smoke to ward off evil spirits. There certainly is a science behind this ritual. They don't just do it to look cool.



> Indeed we could, and I love debating it, hence why I've been discussing topics like this online and in person for over 20 years. I don't think it's a pointless argument at all. The more people are taken out of their comfort zone of beliefs and challenged to alternative ones the better. That's in general how we learn and progress.


I say that really because I was banned from a certain part of this forum because I said something controversial about religion. I really care about my SAS account and keep it so I can discuss Social Anxiety, not religion. Never forget that the Mods are watching.


----------



## ugh1979

rawrguy said:


> Yeah, I actually do mean that what you are experiencing might be supernatural. Unless someone breaks into your home or you have a very bad memory. Did I blow your mind?


No you certainly didn't blow my mind. Why would you when I've already told you the almost certain scientific reason for why it happens?



> There certainly is a huge difference between Harry Potter and religion. Harry potter is NOT a religion. Fairies may or may exist in some religions, dunno not an expert in that field.


Of course there is a difference, but the point is valid in that there is no credible evidence for the actuality of the existence of either. I could just have well cited supernatural characters from other works of fiction, some of which are found in mythology just like religious characters rather than contemporary fiction.

When there is no credible evidence to go on and all someone has is basing a belief on is religious faith, then anything goes if they desire. That's the futility of religious faith for you.



> There is science and philosophical reasoning in religion. For example, Catholic priests use smoke to ward off evil spirits. There certainly is a science behind this ritual. They don't just do it to look cool.


I can understand the philosophical reasoning in religion (even though I personally disagree with it), but I've never seen any scientific reasoning in religion stand up to scrutiny.

What science is behind the Catholic holy smoke ritual? It's traditional and symbolic yes, but does it have a scientific justification? No.



> I say that really because I was banned from a certain part of this forum because I said something controversial about religion. I really care about my SAS account and keep it so I can discuss Social Anxiety, not religion. Never forget that the Mods are watching .


Indeed I'm familiar with the mods here as I've been here for many years. I find them very reasonable and as long as oppositional debates in the discussion forum don't end up being crude conflicts they accept them. There's even more leeway in the religious discussion forum since controversial discussions are typical, and the rules of that forum explicitly permit them within reason.

So, unless we are going to start throwing crude personal insults at each other rather than having a valid discussion you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## rawrguy

ugh1979 said:


> No you certainly didn't blow my mind. Why would you when I've already told you the almost certain scientific reason for why it happens?


So you left the door open and you forgot you did? LOL talked yourself into a circle there



> Of course there is a difference, but the point is valid in that there is no credible evidence for the actuality of the existence of either. I could just have well cited supernatural characters from other works of fiction, some of which are found in mythology just like religious characters rather than contemporary fiction.


Okay. Scientifically prove that God does not exist. You might win the Nobel Peace prize.



> When there is no credible evidence to go on and all someone has is basing a belief on is religious faith, then anything goes if they desire. That's the futility of religious faith for you.


There is not any credible evidence that religious faith is wrong. If there was, I guarantee you every atheist on the planet would whip it out whenever someone even mentions religion or anything supernatural. Atheist can never say that religion does not exist without being as passionate about it as much as a religious person would be. Anything which you can be overly passionate about isn't really science.



> I can understand the philosophical reasoning in religion (even though I personally disagree with it), but I've never seen any scientific reasoning in religion stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> What science is behind the Catholic holy smoke ritual? It's traditional and symbolic yes, but does it have a scientific justification? No.


So they never did any trail and error or controlled experiments with these rituals. M'kay. Believe whatever you want, you're an adult.



> Indeed I'm familiar with the mods here as I've been here for many years. I find them very reasonable and as long as oppositional debates in the discussion forum don't end up being crude conflicts they accept them. There's even more leeway in the religious discussion forum since controversial discussions are typical, and the rules of that forum explicitly permit them within reason.
> 
> So, unless we are going to start throwing crude personal insults at each other rather than having a valid discussion you have nothing to worry about.


I didn't even make a crude personal insult when I got banned. All I did was tell someone 'God does not exist.' Apparently you are at better terms with the Mods, so you can keep debating until this forum doesn't exist anymore.


----------



## ugh1979

rawrguy said:


> So you left the door open and you forgot you did? LOL talked yourself into a circle there


No you have clearly forgotten what _I_ said the explanation was (physics based), and that it was _you _ that was talking about forgetting that door was left open as the explanation (or it being supernatural).



> Okay. Scientifically prove that God does not exist. You might win the Nobel Peace prize.


I can't scientifically prove Harry Potter or fairies doesn't exist either. You can't prove a negative. There are many things which we can credibly dismiss though due to zero or poor evidence for their existence, such as god, Harry Potter and fairies. I bet you dismiss the actuality of things everyday based on this very reasoning. We all do.



> There is not any credible evidence that religious faith is wrong. If there was, I guarantee you every atheist on the planet would whip it out whenever someone even mentions religion or anything supernatural.


To the contrary, the hundreds of years of evidence which negates the existence of religious claims is the credible evidence for them being fiction rather than fact.

You've not debated many atheists on the subject if you haven't heard them talking about that fact. I probably mention it at least twice a day for example!  Lack of credible evidence for supernatural claims is the credible reason why they can be dismissed.



> Atheist can never say that religion does not exist without being as passionate about it as much as a religious person would be.


That sentence doesn't really make sense. Can you try explaining it in other words?



> Anything which you can be overly passionate about isn't really science.


Why not? Why can't someone be overly passionate about any subject they find interesting, beautiful, captivating, awesome etc?



> So they never did any trail and error or controlled experiments with these rituals. M'kay. Believe whatever you want, you're an adult.


Who didn't? Catholics? Scientists? What are you trying to say?



> I didn't even make a crude personal insult when I got banned. All I did was tell someone 'God does not exist.' Apparently you are at better terms with the Mods, so you can keep debating until this forum doesn't exist anymore.


What forum did you say that in? I know they can be a bit touchy about saying that in the Spiritual support forum for example, which is fair enough as that's not the place to debate the existence of gods.


----------



## rawrguy

ugh1979 said:


> No you have clearly forgotten what _I_ said the explanation was (physics based), and that it was _you _ that was talking about forgetting that door was left open as the explanation (or it being supernatural).


OH so you ARE an expert in physics. Didn't know that, sorry.



> I can't scientifically prove Harry Potter or fairies doesn't exist either. You can't prove a negative. There are many things which we can credibly dismiss though due to zero or poor evidence for their existence, such as god, Harry Potter and fairies. I bet you dismiss the actuality of things everyday based on this very reasoning. We all do.


So I guess the billions of people who believe in a higher power are wrong. Okay.



> To the contrary, the hundreds of years of evidence which negates the existence of religious claims is the credible evidence for them being fiction rather than fact.


Whoa, hundreds of years of evidence? Mind citing them all?



> You've not debated many atheists on the subject if you haven't heard them talking about that fact. I probably mention it at least twice a day for example!  Lack of credible evidence for supernatural claims is the credible reason why they can be dismissed.


Come back to me with evidence as undeniable that God does not exist as 2+2=4



> That sentence doesn't really make sense. Can you try explaining it in other words?
> 
> Why not? Why can't someone be overly passionate about any subject they find interesting, beautiful, captivating, awesome etc?


If science is swayed by opinion it is not really credible.



> What forum did you say that in? I know they can be a bit touchy about saying that in the Spiritual support forum for example, which is fair enough as that's not the place to debate the existence of gods.


Hm so I am only allowed to talk about religion at a certain part of the forum. Actually the Topic I replied to was already in the wrong part of the forum. SEEMS FAIR

I'm done arguing. We have been doing nothing but talking in circles. I have better things to do with my day.


----------



## ugh1979

rawrguy said:


> OH so you ARE an expert in physics. Didn't know that, sorry.


I keep informed about it, but i'm not an expert. I know enough to understand how gravity can work on a door on hinges though!



> So I guess the billions of people who believe in a higher power are wrong. Okay.


Please don't make argumentum ad populum arguments as that's a fallacy. The number of people who believe something has no bearing on its accuracy unless they are experts in showing why it's accurate.



> Whoa, hundreds of years of evidence? Mind citing them all?


Did you know some of the first recognised Western scientists such as Newton were actually motivated to do science in attempt to prove their god existed. The irony is they ended up ushering in the Enlightenment and the destruction of the idea of a god being credible.

It's still a popular idea though for obvious reasons, and some people obviously do try and show evidence that it's true, yet despite hundreds of years of trying nobody has found a shred of evidence for it's legitimacy, while evidence for a universe which needs no god has flourished. What does that tell you?



> Come back to me with evidence as undeniable that God does not exist as 2+2=4


I've already told you that you can't prove a negative. I can't provide absolute 100% evidence unicorns don't exist either, but doesn't that mean you should think they might exist? No.



> If science is swayed by opinion it is not really credible.


What does opinion have do with it? You're not explaining what you meant. Opinion is fine to be guided by as long as it's backed up with credible evidence.



> Hm so I am only allowed to talk about religion at a certain part of the forum. Actually the Topic I replied to was already in the wrong part of the forum. SEEMS FAIR


Yeah pretty much. There is a time and place for such discussion, so it's fair that there are forums here for it.



> I'm done arguing. We have been doing nothing but talking in circles. I have better things to do with my day.


Have we? I've been enjoying our discussion.


----------



## rawrguy

ugh1979 said:


> Have we? I've been enjoying our discussion.


Yup. You obviously have some strong opinions. Go find some other catholic to pick on.


----------



## jimity

> Every time I leave my house I leave one of my doors almost shut, and everyday when I get home it's wide open. Do I think it's something supernatural? Of course not. It's in line with what I said earlier.


Could be the wind. Plus I have doors open by themselves but that doesn't mean I think it's supernatural either.



> Doors violently shaking is more interesting, but I'm sure if you got someone less credulous than you to observe it happening they would find a rational reason for why it is happening.


You seem pretty non credulous so maybe you can offer up an explanation. Earthquakes perhaps? Maybe air currents from open windows? I've heard all these explanation and they've all been eliminated. No earthquakes reported and no open windows to let in currents. Doors don't just shake violently for no reason. Maybe they shake a little bit from air currents or a heavy vehicle going past but to shake violently and for more than 30 seconds I don't see any other cause other than someone playing a prank or an earthquake which of course all possible causes had been eliminated. I know the conclusion from the non credulous person would be we just don't know and no supernatural explanation is ever offered because we have no evidence for such things.


----------



## rawrguy

jimity said:


> You seem pretty non credulous so maybe you can offer up an explanation. Earthquakes perhaps?
> Maybe air currents from open windows? I've heard all these explanation and they've all been eliminated. No earthquakes reported and no open windows to let in currents. Doors don't just shake violently for no reason. Maybe they shake a little bit from air currents or a heavy vehicle going past but to shake violently and for more than 30 seconds I don't see any other cause other than someone playing a prank or an earthquake which of course all possible causes had been eliminated. I know the conclusion from the non credulous person would be we just don't know and no supernatural explanation is ever offered because we have no evidence for such things.


Okay so, my dad was the only one there. I asked him if he shook the door. He said no. I asked him if he felt an earthquake, he said no (also, if it was an earthquake, you would think that more than the door would have shook and I would have actually felt the ground move). My dad is an incredibly credible source by the way and there is no reason why he would lie to me. It wasn't the wind, I think I already said that. No vehicle would be anywhere near my condo since it is not on a residential street nor is it near the parking lot. I already thought of everything you said here, and debunked them in my head.

No other explanation other than something beyond this world. Happy?


----------



## jimity

rawrguy said:


> No other explanation other than something beyond this world. Happy?


That is what I was getting at. Only narrow minded scientific people won't contemplate the supernatural simply because there is no evidence for it despite a violently shaking door violating all known physics.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Could be the wind. Plus I have doors open by themselves but that doesn't mean I think it's supernatural either.


No wind in my house as I shut the windows when I go out. As I say, it is undoubtedly just gravity.



> You seem pretty non credulous so maybe you can offer up an explanation. Earthquakes perhaps? Maybe air currents from open windows? I've heard all these explanation and they've all been eliminated. No earthquakes reported and no open windows to let in currents. Doors don't just shake violently for no reason. Maybe they shake a little bit from air currents or a heavy vehicle going past but to shake violently and for more than 30 seconds I don't see any other cause other than someone playing a prank or an earthquake which of course all possible causes had been eliminated. I know the conclusion from the non credulous person would be we just don't know and no supernatural explanation is ever offered because we have no evidence for such things.


It's an interesting case, but it's silly to say it must be supernatural just because you don't know. That would be an argument from ignorance.

Maybe the door got kind of stuck on it's hinges and as it moved to close due to gravity it juddered creating the shaking? That's a far more plausible answer than some supernatural one.


----------



## ugh1979

rawrguy said:


> Okay so, my dad was the only one there. I asked him if he shook the door. He said no. I asked him if he felt an earthquake, he said no (also, if it was an earthquake, you would think that more than the door would have shook and I would have actually felt the ground move). My dad is an incredibly credible source by the way and there is no reason why he would lie to me. It wasn't the wind, I think I already said that. No vehicle would be anywhere near my condo since it is not on a residential street nor is it near the parking lot. I already thought of everything you said here, and debunked them in my head.
> 
> No other explanation other than something beyond this world. Happy?


As I said in response to jimity, there are other rational answers so just because you haven't thought of them doesn't mean it must be supernatural.

I'm sure we've all seen things fall down or off things and not known why. On investigation of the phenomena where possible it always turns out someone just didn't realise the object etc was in an unstable position, and physics eventually led it to fall. Humans aren't great at remembering such details and have fallible memories, and are quick to assume intelligent agents for any action they don't know isn't.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> That is what I was getting at. Only narrow minded scientific people won't contemplate the supernatural simply because there is no evidence for it despite a violently shaking door violating all known physics.


You're confusing being incredulous with being narrow minded. It would be as foolish to assume ghosts or such like typical supernatural ideas as it would to assume unicorns sneaked in and did it.

There's nothing wrong with just saying we don't know when there is insufficient evidence. When that is the case, the incredulous/credible position is to assume an unknown but rational explanation.

If a supernatural answer can be shown to be the reason then great, I know i'd be open to that, as I'm open to anything which can be shown to exist. There are many supernatural believers though who are too close minded to accept that their supernatural ideas have no merit and refuse to accept rational answers.

There is nobody more close minded than someone who refuses to accept something even after huge amounts of credible evidence which shows it to be true.

You can't say someone is close minded for not accepting ideas you believe but have no evidence for.


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> No wind in my house as I shut the windows when I go out. As I say, it is undoubtedly just gravity.
> 
> It's an interesting case, but it's silly to say it must be supernatural just because you don't know. That would be an argument from ignorance.
> 
> Maybe the door got kind of stuck on it's hinges and as it moved to close due to gravity it juddered creating the shaking? That's a far more plausible answer than some supernatural one.


I'm not sure how much shaking you think a door stuck on it's hinges could create but I think that situation wouldn't produce "violent" shaking where the door moves back and forth for even a few seconds let alone a minute. Even you should realize a door shaking around violently would need to have quite a strong force to cause that to happen. A door getting stuck on it's hinges would just stop moving. And a door closing by itself normally closes quite slowly from gravity.


----------



## jimity

> You're confusing being incredulous with being narrow minded. It would be as foolish to assume ghosts or such like typical supernatural ideas as it would to assume unicorns sneaked in and did it.


Again with the unicorns. There are too many reports of people seeing or experiencing ghosts and ghostly phenomena to simply pass it off as hallucinations or illusions or something. These people who claim to have experienced ghost activity are not schizophrenic or psychotic and I'm sure most are intelligent enough to know the difference between something easily explainable and something that is unknown.



> There's nothing wrong with just saying we don't know when there is insufficient evidence. When that is the case, the incredulous/credible position is to assume an unknown but rational explanation.


Doors shouldn't shake about violently unless there is an earthquake or somebody is shaking it or the wind is blowing it. You say a supernatural explanation is silly but I think your idea about the hinges getting stuck is silly.



> If a supernatural answer can be shown to be the reason then great, I know i'd be open to that, as I'm open to anything which can be shown to exist. There are many supernatural believers though who are too close minded to accept that their supernatural ideas have no merit and refuse to accept rational answers.


Well that all depends on what has occurred. If no explanation for how something moved about such as a door shaking back and forth or a book falling off a shelf when it was sitting snug on the shelf then a supernatural one should be considered. And many people don't believe rational explanations because some of them offered sound almost as ridiculous as any supernatural ones sound to the so called incredulous people.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> I'm not sure how much shaking you think a door stuck on it's hinges could create but I think that situation wouldn't produce "violent" shaking where the door moves back and forth for even a few seconds let alone a minute. Even you should realize a door shaking around violently would need to have quite a strong force to cause that to happen. A door getting stuck on it's hinges would just stop moving. And a door closing by itself normally closes quite slowly from gravity.


I've seen doors judder shut due to having hinges which weren't well oiled. Metal rubbing on metal doesn't always slide, sometimes it will judder, as the action of gravity on a heavy doors creates a strong force. Where are you getting that the door we are discussing shook for a minute? You've just made that part up. This story of the shaking door seems to be being exaggerated further and further. Even by you and it's not even your story! :lol

Anyway, is a mysterious shaking door really all someone needs to believe in the supernatural? Talk about credulity. :roll


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Again with the unicorns.


What's wrong with them? Some people believe in them, they have faith! 



> There are too many reports of people seeing or experiencing ghosts and ghostly phenomena to simply pass it off as hallucinations or illusions or something. These people who claim to have experienced ghost activity are not schizophrenic or psychotic and I'm sure most are intelligent enough to know the difference between something easily explainable and something that is unknown.


Yes there are many reports, just as there is overwhelming evidence for how fallible human minds are for seeing things that aren't there. There's many rational explanations for the phenomena, and the fact no supernatural accounts of it ever stand up to scrutiny should be all the guidance you need on the matter, but no, you'd prefer to just believe what you want and reject what the evidence indicates. Classic cognitive bias led reasoning.



> Doors shouldn't shake about violently unless there is an earthquake or somebody is shaking it or the wind is blowing it. You say a supernatural explanation is silly but I think your idea about the hinges getting stuck is silly.
> 
> Well that all depends on what has occurred. If no explanation for how something moved about such as a door shaking back and forth or a book falling off a shelf when it was sitting snug on the shelf then a supernatural one should be considered. And many people don't believe rational explanations because some of them offered sound almost as ridiculous as any supernatural ones sound to the so called incredulous people.


Well as I've explained, some doors are known to have issues shutting which could result in juddering, so it's perfectly rational. Suddenly jumping to a claim that it must be supernatural is preposterous.

Rational reasons are based on evidence, and if someone doesn't have knowledge of how something unusual happens then it could seem ridiculous to them. Reality need not be intuitive, we've shown time and again that it's often not. I often hear from fans of the supernatural who have an aversion to anything that doesn't seem intuitive to them, even though the things in question been shown to be reality without doubt, and chose their own fantastical yet intuitive alternative reasoning for them. I think it's down to mental laziness and/or desire for everything in their world to be simple or indicate how they _want _reality to be. Studies show that's unfortunately a typical human mentality, hence how rife supernatural beliefs often are. Many people are driven by desire rather than data.


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> I've seen doors judder shut due to having hinges which weren't well oiled. Metal rubbing on metal doesn't always slide, sometimes it will judder, as the action of gravity on a heavy doors creates a strong force. Where are you getting that the door we are discussing shook for a minute? You've just made that part up. This story of the shaking door seems to be being exaggerated further and further. Even by you and it's not even your story! :lol
> 
> Anyway, is a mysterious shaking door really all someone needs to believe in the supernatural? Talk about credulity. :roll


You've seen doors judder? Did they just happen to move about with a lot of force or did someone try to push it shut?

The action of gravity creates a strong force. Yeah if the house is built on the slope of a hill :lol

No I haven't made that up. I've been searching on google about how a door can shake violently for no apparant reason and I've come across stories about doors shaking for prolonged periods, one being around a minute, without any apparent cause. So what do you want a person to think about a situation like that? To say it's a fabrication or maybe just a dream? Maybe you can explain a mysterious shaking door. Maybe a snake or a large worm inside :lol. Sorry but doors don't just shake violently and move back and forth. And the guy you were debating with in this thread mentioned the door was shaking violently. Maybe you should ask him how bad it was and how long it went for.


----------



## jimity

> Yes there are many reports, just as there is overwhelming evidence for how fallible human minds are for seeing things that aren't there. There's many rational explanations for the phenomena, and the fact no supernatural accounts of it ever stand up to scrutiny should be all the guidance you need on the matter, but no, you'd prefer to just believe what you want and reject what the evidence indicates. Classic cognitive bias led reasoning.


Why would people see things that aren't there? These people are not psychotic or on drugs. I've heard many accounts of ghosts on documentaries being seen and even heard. These aren't fuzzy accounts either. The people are being interviewed and claim there was someone talking to them and to this day have no explanation for who or what happened other than it being a ghost. And what rational explanation for ghosts are there?



> Well as I've explained, some doors are known to have issues shutting which could result in juddering, so it's perfectly rational. Suddenly jumping to a claim that it must be supernatural is preposterous.


I'm jumping to a supernatural claim because I've eliminated all possible natural causes.



> Rational reasons are based on evidence, and if someone doesn't have knowledge of how something unusual happens then it could seem ridiculous to them. Reality need not be intuitive, we've shown time and again that it's often not. I often hear from fans of the supernatural who have an aversion to anything that doesn't seem intuitive to them, even though the things in question been shown to be reality without doubt, and chose their own fantastical yet intuitive alternative reasoning for them. I think it's down to mental laziness and/or desire for everything in their world to be simple or indicate how they _want _reality to be. Studies show that's unfortunately a typical human mentality, hence how rife supernatural beliefs often are. Many people are driven by desire rather than data.


I'm all for rational explanations. Just don't go saying it's the hinges when someone says a door started shaking violently all by itself.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> You've seen doors judder? Did they just happen to move about with a lot of force or did someone try to push it shut?


Have you ever heard a door creak? It's due to the hinge not being well oiled enough and the rubbing make a staccato or other noise. If the resistance is high enough, it might not just be a staccato noise it will make, it can actually turn into physical juddering. I guess you need to have some knowledge of physics/mechanics to understand how it could happen.



> The action of gravity creates a strong force. Yeah if the house is built on the slope of a hill :lol


You need very little gradient to see the effects of gravity on something like a door hanging from hinges.



> No I haven't made that up. I've been searching on google about how a door can shake violently for no apparant reason and I've come across stories about doors shaking for prolonged periods, one being around a minute, without any apparent cause. So what do you want a person to think about a situation like that? To say it's a fabrication or maybe just a dream? Maybe you can explain a mysterious shaking door. Maybe a snake or a large worm inside :lol. Sorry but doors don't just shake violently and move back and forth. And the guy you were debating with in this thread mentioned the door was shaking violently. Maybe you should ask him how bad it was and how long it went for.


OK so you are talking about some totally different case rather than the one we were talking about and decided not to mention it. :roll

People are very good at exaggerating such tales, so along with ignorance of how things like that can happen it doesn't surprise me people dream up such fantastical explanations for something that is in reality undoubtedly very mundane.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Why would people see things that aren't there? These people are not psychotic or on drugs. I've heard many accounts of ghosts on documentaries being seen and even heard. These aren't fuzzy accounts either. The people are being interviewed and claim there was someone talking to them and to this day have no explanation for who or what happened other than it being a ghost.


People see stuff which isn't there all the time. It's a common side effect of how the brain processes ambiguous visual stimuli. Read about pareidolia for example.

I don't doubt people have such compelling experiences, but the mind can be great at tricking people. See below link for further info on how it can happen.



> And what rational explanation for ghosts are there?


Too many to type up here, but here's 10 to get you started.



> I'm jumping to a supernatural claim because I've eliminated all possible natural causes.


To the contrary, you are obviously ignorant of the possible natural causes. You just asked me what rational explanations there are for ghosts which means you are clearly unaware of them.



> I'm all for rational explanations.


From our discourse on various subjects on this forum I know that's not true. You lap up and promote conspiracy theories and fantastical beliefs over rational explanations all the time, often actively rejecting well established credible science and evidence when it doesn't suit your desired world-view. It's clear you are very keen to believe there in the supernatural which leads to serious cognitive bias.



> Just don't go saying it's the hinges when someone says a door started shaking violently all by itself.


When it probably was the hinges, for the reasons I've clearly explained, then of course I will.


----------



## jimity

> To the contrary, you are obviously ignorant of the possible natural causes. You just asked me what rational explanations there are for ghosts which means you are clearly unaware of them.


That was for ghosts. Violently shaking doors cannot be explained away rationally the same way ghosts can.



> From our discourse on various subjects on this forum I know that's not true. You lap up and promote conspiracy theories and fantastical beliefs over rational explanations all the time, often actively rejecting well established credible science and evidence when it doesn't suit your desired world-view. It's clear you are very keen to believe there in the supernatural which leads to serious cognitive bias.


Oh really. What well established scientific explanations do I reject? Is it how the big bang created the universe? Not exactly science anyway. Is it the pyramids were built by aliens or by supernatural means? Who else could possibly lift such heavy stones and build the things to such mathematical precision. And what conspiracy theories do I promote? Is it that giant human bones were hidden to keep the lie of evolution going? Think of the ramifications if the truth got out. Is it the reason why the US invaded Iraq. I'd believe almost any of the conspiracy theories than the offical reason of "liberating" Iraq :lol



> When it probably was the hinges, for the reasons I've clearly explained, then of course I will.


So you don't believe a door could shake back and forth violently for a minute?


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> That was for ghosts. Violently shaking doors cannot be explained away rationally the same way ghosts can.


Yes it can, as i've described, and I know how much people often exaggerate so any mysterious creak of squeak can turn into an epic tale about doors that shake for minutes etc. Without anyway to verify what they said why should they be trusted?



> Oh really. What well established scientific explanations do I reject? Is it how the big bang created the universe? Not exactly science anyway. Is it the pyramids were built by aliens or by supernatural means? Who else could possibly lift such heavy stones and build the things to such mathematical precision. And what conspiracy theories do I promote? Is it that giant human bones were hidden to keep the lie of evolution going? Think of the ramifications if the truth got out. Is it the reason why the US invaded Iraq. I'd believe almost any of the conspiracy theories than the offical reason of "liberating" Iraq :lol


The fact you think scientific theories aren't credible science and that you are somehow better qualified to know the truth via your creationist, supernatural loving and conspiracy theory websites is so a laughable I don't know how you can take yourself seriously. :lol

We've been over these things on many occasions, and your arguments get destroyed every time.



> So you don't believe a door could shake back and forth violently for a minute?


I don't believe someone who tells such a tale is telling the truth.


----------



## jimity

> Without anyway to verify what they said why should they be trusted?


Because they said it. You'd just like for it to be a lie so you don't need to stretch your mind more. And who are you to say something someone claims to have seen is complete bs? Where you there to witness it? No! So how can you say that what someone is claiming is bs.



> We've been over these things on many occasions, and your arguments get destroyed every time.


Just because an argument get's destroyed doesn't mean it's not valid.



> I don't believe someone who tells such a tale is telling the truth.


You just have to search through forums where supernatural things are discussed and you'll see a lot of events described that seem to defy natural law. You think those websites are just people going on there and talking crap. Yeah right they are.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Because they said it. You'd just like for it to be a lie so you don't need to stretch your mind more. And who are you to say something someone claims to have seen is complete bs? Where you there to witness it? No! So how can you say that what someone is claiming is bs.
> 
> You just have to search through forums where supernatural things are discussed and you'll see a lot of events described that seem to defy natural law. You think those websites are just people going on there and talking crap. Yeah right they are.


The fact these people can never provide any credible evidence for what they saw and attempts to ever get such events credibly recorded speaks volumes about the actuality of their claims. They are undoubtedly just delusions, exaggerations, pareidolia or hallucinations in line with the many rational answers there are for the phenomena.

It takes much credulity to believe them.

On a related note, do you believe people like David Blaine etc do real magic? It really wouldn't surprise me if you did since you take things at seemingly face value and assume the supernatural for anything you can't understand.



> Just because an argument get's destroyed doesn't mean it's not valid.


How can it be valid if it's been shown to be wrong?


----------



## rawrguy

ugh1979 said:


> As I said in response to jimity, there are other rational answers so just because you haven't thought of them doesn't mean it must be supernatural.
> 
> I'm sure we've all seen things fall down or off things and not known why. On investigation of the phenomena where possible it always turns out someone just didn't realise the object etc was in an unstable position, and physics eventually led it to fall. Humans aren't great at remembering such details and have fallible memories, and are quick to assume intelligent agents for any action they don't know isn't.


I have thought about replying to some of the posts on this thread, but this thread is getting too tl;drish. Now I think the arguments are getting down to nothing more than trolling. I can not give you evidence over the internet about something that you were not there for :roll Either take my word for it or shut the hell up. Kthxbai.


----------



## jimity

> The fact these people can never provide any credible evidence for what they saw and attempts to ever get such events credibly recorded speaks volumes about the actuality of their claims. They are undoubtedly just delusions, exaggerations, pareidolia or hallucinations in line with the many rational answers there are for the phenomena.


Carbon monoxide poisoning might explain seeing things inside a house but outside? Never.



> On a related note, do you believe people like David Blaine etc do real magic? It really wouldn't surprise me if you did since you take things at seemingly face value and assume the supernatural for anything you can't understand.


No I don't believe he or any magician does real magic. I know how many magic tricks are done and even when I didn't know how they were done I still knew it was all trickery.



> It takes much credulity to believe them.


I take most people seriously when they say they saw a ghost talking to them. Unless I suspect they have a reason to lie then I would take them seriously.



> How can it be valid if it's been shown to be wrong?


I was trying to say that if you think I'm wrong because I made a logical fallacy or invalid argument that doesn't mean I'm wrong. For example since all claims of ghosts have not actually been investigated then nobody can say ghosts are just nonsense and to claim ghosts exist is preposterous.


----------



## jimity

rawrguy said:


> I have thought about replying to some of the posts on this thread, but this thread is getting too tl;drish. Now I think the arguments are getting down to nothing more than trolling. I can not give you evidence over the internet about something that you were not there for :roll Either take my word for it or shut the hell up. Kthxbai.


Nah it's not trolling. Ugh1979 is too stubborn to consider anything not written in a scientific textbook


----------



## ugh1979

rawrguy said:


> I have thought about replying to some of the posts on this thread, but this thread is getting too tl;drish. Now I think the arguments are getting down to nothing more than trolling. I can not give you evidence over the internet about something that you were not there for :roll Either take my word for it or shut the hell up. Kthxbai.


It's sad you think offering rational evidence based counter argument amounts to trolling. If anything it's unsubstantiated claims which are trolling, but I'm still happy to debate them.

I have no reason to take your word for it, and many reasons to be sceptical, so no, I'll not shut up.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Nah it's not trolling. Ugh1979 is too stubborn to consider anything not written in a scientific textbook


I'm open to anything which has credible evidence to back it up. That's not stubbornness. That's called being incredulous.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Carbon monoxide poisoning might explain seeing things inside a house but outside? Never.


Why have you cherry picked one from the list I gave you that would only apply to indoors and ignored the ones that would apply to outdoors, and then bemoan the the carbon dioxide one for not being applicable to the outside?



> No I don't believe he or any magician does real magic. I know how many magic tricks are done and even when I didn't know how they were done I still knew it was all trickery.


OK so there are things you don't know how are done that seem supernatural but aren't. I find it strange you don't apply the same reasoning to certain other things.



> I take most people seriously when they say they saw a ghost talking to them. Unless I suspect they have a reason to lie then I would take them seriously.


That's because you are credulous. Anyone who accepts such anecdotal tales in the absence of corroborating evidence is.



> I was trying to say that if you think I'm wrong because I made a logical fallacy or invalid argument that doesn't mean I'm wrong. For example since all claims of ghosts have not actually been investigated then nobody can say ghosts are just nonsense


I could apply the same reasoning to say that invisible pink unicorns that kick doors in the night, or anything else I dreamt up aren't nonsense. The bottom line is, until evidence for the actuality of something can be found then it can be dismissed.



> and to claim ghosts exist is preposterous.


Yes to claim ghosts exist is preposterous.


----------



## jimity

> Why have you cherry picked one from the list I gave you that would only apply to indoors and ignored the ones that would apply to outdoors, and then bemoan the the carbon dioxide one for not being applicable to the outside?


Because I have heard claims of seeing and hearing ghosts while they person was outside. If carbon monoxide was the reason for seeing and hearing a ghost indoors how does that explain seeing and hearing a full blown ghost outdoors. That's why I picked it. And it's not cherry picking, it's a valid question.



> OK so there are things you don't know how are done that seem supernatural but aren't. I find it strange you don't apply the same reasoning to certain other things.


Maybe because the documentaries I've seen on ghosts can never really explain what is happening and the stories can't seemed to be explained away using everyday reasoning.



> That's because you are credulous. Anyone who accepts such anecdotal tales in the absence of corroborating evidence is.


I hope something seriously strange happens to you that you cannot explain and nobody believes you one iota.



> I could apply the same reasoning to say that invisible pink unicorns that kick doors in the night, or anything else I dreamt up aren't nonsense. The bottom line is, until evidence for the actuality of something can be found then it can be dismissed.


And why should it? If ghosts have really been disproven why are there still people studying it and why are people still looking for them?



> Yes to claim ghosts exist is preposterous.


Really. Maybe you should learn how to astral project and then call out for spirits to come to you and see what happens or get involved in conjuring up demons. Then you might start believing in ghosts.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Because I have heard claims of seeing and hearing ghosts while they person was outside. If carbon monoxide was the reason for seeing and hearing a ghost indoors how does that explain seeing and hearing a full blown ghost outdoors. That's why I picked it. And it's not cherry picking, it's a valid question.


Why do you think anyone is claiming it can be a reason for it happening outside?



> Maybe because the documentaries I've seen on ghosts can never really explain what is happening and the stories can't seemed to be explained away using everyday reasoning.


I suspect the documentaries you watch don't bother to mention all the rational explanations there are. That much is obvious by the fact you weren't even aware of the rational explanations until I advised you of some earlier in this thread. I know the type of trashy "documentaries" you are talking about. Certain once respectable channels are full of such crap these days as they try to appeal to a more credulous audience (which unfortunately is a majority) with things they will more likely find entertaining, such as things about ancient aliens or the supernatural rather than based in scientific fact, the later which I admit can sometimes be more mundane than fantastical ideas.



> I hope something seriously strange happens to you that you cannot explain and nobody believes you one iota.


I've had many strange things happen to me, and while they are mysterious I also know of the rational reasons why such things can happen so assign them to that rather than anything supernatural.



> And why should it? If ghosts have really been disproven why are there still people studying it and why are people still looking for them?


Well you can't prove a negative, so as long as people want to believe in ghosts, fairies, unicorns etc they will keep looking and making claims for their existence. To date no such claims stand up to scrutiny though. If one day any do, so be it, but very very few professionals waste their research time on what appears to be such a dead end. I doesn't matter how much you want something to be true, sometimes you just have to have the intellectual honesty to admit it's not or probably not.



> Really. Maybe you should learn how to astral project and then call out for spirits to come to you and see what happens or get involved in conjuring up demons. Then you might start believing in ghosts.


What's your thoughts on astral projection? Can you explain how it's done? What evidence do you have for it's legitimacy?

I've seen "spirits"/"demons" when tripping or dreaming, but I have no reason to think they weren't facets of my own mind hallucinating/dreaming. Why should I? And why would "astral projection" be any different?


----------



## MamaDoe

I don't know and I wouldn't want to try to find out.

Has anyone seen those radios what pick up voices? EVP's? There's this guy called Huff Paranormal who makes youtube videos using one, it picks up "voices".

It seriously freaks me out. Maybe I'm just being silly and a big scardycat about something what can be explained rationally. I'd rather let others tamper with those things whilst I just watch from my macbook screen.


----------



## rawrguy

ugh1979 said:


> It's sad you think offering rational evidence based counter argument amounts to trolling. If anything it's unsubstantiated claims which are trolling, but I'm still happy to debate them.
> 
> I have no reason to take your word for it, and many reasons to be sceptical, so no, I'll not shut up.


I happen to think that my point of view on the subject is rational too. I also have no reason to accept 'evidence' from someone who did not experience the things I experienced and has a biased atheist agenda.

So I say good day sir.


----------



## dontwaitupforme

Why would it have to be a ouiji board. Why not just the floor or a table?


----------



## rawrguy

Ah hem. I guess I never really got to whether I thought an Ouiji board was the real deal or fake. I think the best experiment for a ouiji board would not be in a lab with a bunch of white coats tinkering with it. The best setting would be in a place where there have been many reports of sightings of apparitions, poltergeists, etc. If it really does trigger spirits, then for sure it will happen there.

I might try it one day, maybe. Don't want any spirits to follow me home though.

That poses the question though: do ouiji boards actually summon spirits, or would they have just appeared anyway? Nobody will ever know.


----------



## jimity

> Why do you think anyone is claiming it can be a reason for it happening outside?


I'm saying it CO inhalation can't be a reason for hallucinating figures while outside unless a person was in a cloud of the stuff.



> I suspect the documentaries you watch don't bother to mention all the rational explanations there are. That much is obvious by the fact you weren't even aware of the rational explanations until I advised you of some earlier in this thread. I know the type of trashy "documentaries" you are talking about. Certain once respectable channels are full of such crap these days as they try to appeal to a more credulous audience (which unfortunately is a majority) with things they will more likely find entertaining, such as things about ancient aliens or the supernatural rather than based in scientific fact, the later which I admit can sometimes be more mundane than fantastical ideas.


This is the show I used to watch.








> I've had many strange things happen to me, and while they are mysterious I also know of the rational reasons why such things can happen so assign them to that rather than anything supernatural.


Such as?



> Well you can't prove a negative, so as long as people want to believe in ghosts, fairies, unicorns etc they will keep looking and making claims for their existence. To date no such claims stand up to scrutiny though. If one day any do, so be it, but very very few professionals waste their research time on what appears to be such a dead end. I doesn't matter how much you want something to be true, sometimes you just have to have the intellectual honesty to admit it's not or probably not.


I didn't know there were people who were looking for unicorns and fairies. I've never even seen any documentary that makes these claims either. I wonder why this is and why ufos and ghosts seem to be more popular.



> What's your thoughts on astral projection? Can you explain how it's done? What evidence do you have for it's legitimacy?


It's done pretty much like lucid dreaming while holding yourself awake just enough to be conscious while letting your body go to sleep or done while inside a lucid dream. I've had several astral projections and the look and feel of the environment is different and the way you move around is different than lucid dreaming.

What evidence are you looking for? Is it that there is a real dimension known as the astral that can accessed via consciousness? How can this be proven or tested in a lab? But I've known a few people who used to get together to astral project and they at one point made a claim of being chased by a figure with a long white beard. Each saw this same figure in their projections.



> I've seen "spirits"/"demons" when tripping or dreaming, but I have no reason to think they weren't facets of my own mind hallucinating/dreaming. Why should I? And why would "astral projection" be any different?


See the shared projection example I gave you above.

But then why would you not believe there to exist other dimensions that contain large scale environments inhabited by other beings?


----------



## ugh1979

rawrguy said:


> I happen to think that my point of view on the subject is rational too. I also have no reason to accept 'evidence' from someone who did not experience the things I experienced and has a biased atheist agenda.
> 
> So I say good day sir.


Well since nobody has ever been able show such claims are rational then we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's funny you call basing beliefs on evidence based rationalism a "biased atheist agenda". It's a rational evidence agenda, which I of course do have bias for rather than beliefs based in credulity. Also, ghosts etc have nothing to do with atheism. Or are you saying it was a god that shook your door?


----------



## ugh1979

rawrguy said:


> Ah hem. I guess I never really got to whether I thought an Ouiji board was the real deal or fake. I think the best experiment for a ouiji board would not be in a lab with a bunch of white coats tinkering with it. The best setting would be in a place where there have been many reports of sightings of apparitions, poltergeists, etc. If it really does trigger spirits, then for sure it will happen there.
> 
> I might try it one day, maybe. Don't want any spirits to follow me home though.
> 
> That poses the question though: do ouiji boards actually summon spirits, or would they have just appeared anyway? Nobody will ever know.


Places where there have been reports of sightings make future sightings more likely due to psychological priming and power of suggestion. Never mind all the rational based explanations that can apply to certain places (some of which I posted earlier), so yes there would be more chance of them appearing at those places, as anecdotal reports show. The key point is though that when those factors are accounted for and such places are scientifically observed nothing ever shows up.

Do you think ghosts are maybe just scared of science? :lol


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> I'm saying it CO inhalation can't be a reason for hallucinating figures while outside unless a person was in a cloud of the stuff.


Of course. But why mention it? Nobody is saying it would. :?



> This is the show I used to watch.


Yeah that's exactly the type of show I'm talking about!



> Such as?


Everything from minor hallucinations of animals in my house to absolute immersion hallucinations. I've been on what appeared to have been another planet and spoken to alien owls, or become part of a shopping centre etc. :lol (So, so much more than that tbh but impossible to describe in words) Great fun, but I don't think for a second it's not just a facet of my own mind in a quasi-dream/hallucination state.



> I didn't know there were people who were looking for unicorns and fairies. I've never even seen any documentary that makes these claims either. I wonder why this is and why ufos and ghosts seem to be more popular.


In history unicorns and fairies were the UFOs and big foot of their day in popularity. They aren't as popular now but have a search Google and you will find some proponents of their existence.



> It's done pretty much like lucid dreaming while holding yourself awake just enough to be conscious while letting your body go to sleep or done while inside a lucid dream. I've had several astral projections and the look and feel of the environment is different and the way you move around is different than lucid dreaming.


I've had such experiences as well, they are great fun, but I have no reason to think they aren't just dreams. Why do you think they are real?



> What evidence are you looking for? Is it that there is a real dimension known as the astral that can accessed via consciousness? How can this be proven or tested in a lab? But I've known a few people who used to get together to astral project and they at one point made a claim of being chased by a figure with a long white beard. Each saw this same figure in their projections.


How can they know it's not all in their head? People often dream about similar things as well but that doesn't mean the places they go are real.



> But then why would you not believe there to exist other dimensions that contain large scale environments inhabited by other beings?


Well since I know my brain can dream such things I have no reason to think anything other than my brain is required to generate those experiences or that they are anything but subjective, plus there is no scientific evidence that we can send our conciousness and senses beyond our physical body.

I don't doubt other environments inhabited by other beings exist, but I have no reason to believe we can travel to them using "astral projection" or any other mental means.


----------



## jimity

> Of course. But why mention it? Nobody is saying it would. :?


Because it was one reason for seeing ghosts that stood out since it seemed to produce the most vivid hallucinations of ghosts. There is no other reason for seeing and hearing a ghost like a real person while outside. The other reasons don't seem to explain a talking ghost.



> Yeah that's exactly the type of show I'm talking about!


But there is a lot left to be explained in many of those cases. Take the case where a guy says he ran out of fuel and managed to get a ride to a gas station from some man. The guy was broke so the driver gave him some money for the fuel. The guy wanted to pay the driver back later on so he got his number in order to call him. Later on he called the number and the driver's wife picked up the phone and when he asked for her husband she told him he had been dead for two years. A fabrication? It has to either be that or ghosts exist.



> Everything from minor hallucinations of animals in my house to absolute immersion hallucinations. I've been on what appeared to have been another planet and spoken to alien owls, or become part of a shopping centre etc. :lol (So, so much more than that tbh but impossible to describe in words) Great fun, but I don't think for a second it's not just a facet of my own mind in a quasi-dream/hallucination state.


Sounds like drug induced states. I'm talking about sober states. Things like poltergeist activity, ghostly presences.



> In history unicorns and fairies were the UFOs and big foot of their day in popularity. They aren't as popular now but have a search Google and you will find some proponents of their existence.


But then I wonder where the idea for these creatures came from. Must of come from somewhere. Not like unicorns are an idea to explain the world like God is.



> I've had such experiences as well, they are great fun, but I have no reason to think they aren't just dreams. Why do you think they are real?


Because they say so in books and on the net. Plus dreams require rem sleep but astral projection I think can be done without going into rem. So it is something different.



> How can they know it's not all in their head? People often dream about similar things as well but that doesn't mean the places they go are real.


Define real? Does that mean a place that can be seen by more than just one person? Does that mean your physical body needs to be at that place your experiencing something as well? Or does it mean the places are made up of the same particles known in this universe?

I'd say the places they go to aren't real like the physical universe but perhaps the places they go to are made up of a different matter than in this universe. In other words these places are real as they are made up of sights and sounds much like the physical world, but these other places at the same time just don't work like the known physical world and tend to be more subjective than objective.



> Well since I know my brain can dream such things I have no reason to think anything other than my brain is required to generate those experiences or that they are anything but subjective, plus there is no scientific evidence that we can send our conciousness and senses beyond our physical body.


Maybe consciousness cannot leave the body but could it be possible that the body can generate a copy of it's own consciousness and that can leave the body instead.

Your brain, apart from dream vivid worlds, is also generating this physical world. Everything you sense is in your head. You have never actually seen the outside world, you've only seen what's inside your head. You agree with that don't you?

So what would the outside world look and feel like before it gets sent to your brain and processed into what you see? Maybe it would look the same or maybe completely different like something you would only see while on a wild drug trip. So perhaps you are while tripping catching a glimpse of something before it is completely processed into reality. And why should data before it is processed by the brain not be seen as real.



> I don't doubt other environments inhabited by other beings exist, but I have no reason to believe we can travel to them using "astral projection" or any other mental means.


When you say other environments do you mean you believe these environments exist in this universe or on some other dimensional level.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Because it was one reason for seeing ghosts that stood out since it seemed to produce the most vivid hallucinations of ghosts. There is no other reason for seeing and hearing a ghost like a real person while outside. The other reasons don't seem to explain a talking ghost.


There are various reasons which could apply when outside, such as pareidolia, infrasound, electrical stimulation, mass hysteria, ions etc. All are cable of producing vivid hallucinations in the right circumstances. Did you even bother to read the list I gave you?



> But there is a lot left to be explained in many of those cases. Take the case where a guy says he ran out of fuel and managed to get a ride to a gas station from some man. The guy was broke so the driver gave him some money for the fuel. The guy wanted to pay the driver back later on so he got his number in order to call him. Later on he called the number and the driver's wife picked up the phone and when he asked for her husband she told him he had been dead for two years. A fabrication? It has to either be that or ghosts exist.


That sounds like a typical camp fire ghost story, so yes, undoubtedly a fabrication, or the guy gave him the wrong number and he phoned some dead guys wife.



> Sounds like drug induced states. I'm talking about sober states. Things like poltergeist activity, ghostly presences.


The fact they can be experienced on drugs mean they can be experienced when sober under the correct conditions. I've had hallucinations via pareidolia when sober many a time, as have most people.



> But then I wonder where the idea for these creatures came from. Must of come from somewhere. Not like unicorns are an idea to explain the world like God is.


We have a natural tendency to look for intelligence agents at work in the world around us. We undoubtedly evolved it as it's evolutionary beneficial. Variation of our own agency rather than the obscure agency science shows us exists are more easily understood, hence why religions and mythology are so highly based in anthropomorphism.



> Because they say so in books and on the net.


That's just gross credulity to give credence to "books and on the net". You need credible scientific evidence for it, as there are millions of fraudulent people keen for you to lap up their lies writing such books and posting such content on websites. People often want to believe it so others are happy to tell them it's real and take their money, despite not having any evidence which stands up to scrutiny.



> Plus dreams require rem sleep but astral projection I think can be done without going into rem. So it is something different.


You need to show astral projection can be done at all first.



> Define real? Does that mean a place that can be seen by more than just one person? Does that mean your physical body needs to be at that place your experiencing something as well? Or does it mean the places are made up of the same particles known in this universe?


Real as in objective rather than subjective.



> I'd say the places they go to aren't real like the physical universe but perhaps the places they go to are made up of a different matter than in this universe. In other words these places are real as they are made up of sights and sounds much like the physical world, but these other places at the same time just don't work like the known physical world and tend to be more subjective than objective.


I'd say they are completely subjective, only being part of the person who is having the experiences conciousness.



> Maybe consciousness cannot leave the body but could it be possible that the body can generate a copy of it's own consciousness and that can leave the body instead.


Well so far nothing has shown that to be plausible, so I can't accept it's plausibility until so. There's all sorts of scientific issues such a hypothesis brings up.



> Your brain, apart from dream vivid worlds, is also generating this physical world. Everything you sense is in your head. You have never actually seen the outside world, you've only seen what's inside your head. You agree with that don't you?
> 
> So what would the outside world look and feel like before it gets sent to your brain and processed into what you see? Maybe it would look the same or maybe completely different like something you would only see while on a wild drug trip. So perhaps you are while tripping catching a glimpse of something before it is completely processed into reality. And why should data before it is processed by the brain not be seen as real.


It's not generating the physical world. The physical world exists objectively. Our minds give us a subjective interpretation of it, since we experience everything via the prism of our mind. That's why we need to use methodology such as the scientific method to establish what really exists and isn't just an illusion.

The objective world doesn't look or feel like anything without something to look at it or feel it, or at least utilising such a frame of reference.



> When you say other environments do you mean you believe these environments exist in this universe or on some other dimensional level.


I think both are plausible, but the term "other dimensional" can mean various things, some of why I don't support the existence of.


----------



## rawrguy

ugh1979 said:


> Well since nobody has ever been able show such claims are rational then we'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> It's funny you call basing beliefs on evidence based rationalism a "biased atheist agenda". It's a rational evidence agenda, which I of course do have bias for rather than beliefs based in credulity. Also, ghosts etc have nothing to do with atheism. Or are you saying it was a god that shook your door?


Obviously an atheist would never believe in spirits. I'm not saying that religious people should believe in ghosts, not all. Can't deny that they were mentioned in religious texts though.

Bet it pisses you off that someone who believes in harry potter is delusional, yet if someone believes spirits exists they are simply spiritual. Must grind your gears that people ghost hunt and actually discover ghosts. Don't burst your bubble for the fact that there are t.v. shows about it either.



> Do you think ghosts are maybe just scared of science? :lol


AHAHAHAHA *cough*idiot*cough*


----------



## jimity

> There are various reasons which could apply when outside, such as pareidolia, infrasound, electrical stimulation, mass hysteria, ions etc. All are cable of producing vivid hallucinations in the right circumstances. Did you even bother to read the list I gave you?


Yes I did and those other reasons don't account for seeing/hearing ghosts while outside because some claims invovled people who were alone while perceiving a ghost so mass hysteria is off the list. And pareidolia is hardly a vivid hallucination.



> That sounds like a typical camp fire ghost story, so yes, undoubtedly a fabrication, or the guy gave him the wrong number and he phoned some dead guys wife.


You so easily to dismiss the story because it sounds ridiculous. But there were details about the driver's clothes the man gave that matched what he was wearing when buried.



> The fact they can be experienced on drugs mean they can be experienced when sober under the correct conditions. I've had hallucinations via pareidolia when sober many a time, as have most people.


Yeah I bet they were so vivid and lifelike you couldn't tell if it was real or not. Sounds like you could be exaggerating and pareidola doesn't account for hearing things.



> That's just gross credulity to give credence to "books and on the net". You need credible scientific evidence for it, as there are millions of fraudulent people keen for you to lap up their lies writing such books and posting such content on websites. People often want to believe it so others are happy to tell them it's real and take their money, despite not having any evidence which stands up to scrutiny.


Why do you need scientific evidence for it? There are loads of books on lucid dreaming for example and you don't need scientific evidence for it to know it exists. If you've done it and experienced it then you know lucid dreaming is real. You don't need someone to come and tell you there needs to be evidence for it to be a real ability. And so with astral projection, it gives a person a different experience than lucid dreaming. Even if astral projection isn't a real ability and the astral dimension isn't a real objective place but just a dream then it doesn't really matter, people who are drawn to it will still want to experience it and parting with their money isn't because they were scammed. And there are plenty of free articles of it on the net to master it. It's one's choice to part with their money for a book.



> You need to show astral projection can be done at all first.


How do you expect someone to show anyone it exists? You need personal experience with it to know. This is like asking a person to prove what they claimed to have dreamed was what they actually dreamed. A person must look at the experience itself to say whether it was an astral projection or just a lucid dream.



> I'd say they are completely subjective, only being part of the person who is having the experiences conciousness.


What if two people have a lucid dream and they agree to meet each other in the dream and have a conversation in the dream or carry out some task and later talk about it and both confirm the things spoken of in the dream or tasks carried out. I'd say the dream world can be objective to some degree as well.


----------



## ugh1979

rawrguy said:


> Obviously an atheist would never believe in spirits. I'm not saying that religious people should believe in ghosts, not all. Can't deny that they were mentioned in religious texts though.


You are wrongly assuming the existence of ghosts would mean the existence of a god. That's simply not true. Just because ghosts are mentioned in scripture doesn't mean scripture is true any more than the fact pyramids are mentioned in scripture meaning scripture is true.



> Bet it pisses you off that someone who believes in harry potter is delusional, yet if someone believes spirits exists they are simply spiritual.


Well I believe both are delusional, and I enjoy discussing that so to the contrary I enjoy it.



> Must grind your gears that people ghost hunt and actually discover ghosts. Don't burst your bubble for the fact that there are t.v. shows about it either.


I don't care that people ghost hunt. People do lots of stupid things in pursuit of their fantasies. I hope you realise that there's a huge difference between them _thinking _they have discovered ghosts and _actually _discovering ghosts though. The latter which has never been done with any credibility. If anyone ever did I'd happily accept their existence. I have nothing against the general concept but I'd be a fool to accept something without credible evidence.



> AHAHAHAHA *cough*idiot*cough*


Wow you actually thought I was being serious! Haha. *Cough*Cough* indeed. :lol


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Yes I did and those other reasons don't account for seeing/hearing ghosts while outside because some claims invovled people who were alone while perceiving a ghost so mass hysteria is off the list. And pareidolia is hardly a vivid hallucination.


So you're just going to ignore infrasound, electrical stimulation, and ions then, all which can apply outside? Also, pareidolia can produce a vivid hallucination.



> You so easily to dismiss the story because it sounds ridiculous. But there were details about the driver's clothes the man gave that matched what he was wearing when buried.


Oh let me guess, he was wearing a suit. :roll



> Yeah I bet they were so vivid and lifelike you couldn't tell if it was real or not. Sounds like you could be exaggerating and pareidola doesn't account for hearing things.


I've already explained how the mind can produce vivid hallucinations. You keep trying to move the goalposts and say one way can't account for X while ignoring the other options.

Also, pareidolia applies as much to sound as it does vision. At least try and do some research before talking about it.



> Why do you need scientific evidence for it? There are loads of books on lucid dreaming for example and you don't need scientific evidence for it to know it exists. If you've done it and experienced it then you know lucid dreaming is real. You don't need someone to come and tell you there needs to be evidence for it to be a real ability. And so with astral projection, it gives a person a different experience than lucid dreaming. Even if astral projection isn't a real ability and the astral dimension isn't a real objective place but just a dream then it doesn't really matter, people who are drawn to it will still want to experience it and parting with their money isn't because they were scammed. And there are plenty of free articles of it on the net to master it. It's one's choice to part with their money for a book.


You're missing a major point here. Lucid dreaming doesn't infer anything supernatural. It's related supernatural claims I have issue with.



> How do you expect someone to show anyone it exists? You need personal experience with it to know. This is like asking a person to prove what they claimed to have dreamed was what they actually dreamed. A person must look at the experience itself to say whether it was an astral projection or just a lucid dream.


People are terrible at discerning fact from fiction under such circumstances, so to prove they were actually travelling out side their body and going to real places they would need to report back on something they couldn't have known about any other way, and the process would have to be repeated with other objective astral projection claimants to rule out chance etc. There is methodology we can use to establish fact from fiction.

Someone can claim objective astral projection exists all the want but there is no reason to believe them any more than the actuality of the delusions of a schizophrenic.



> What if two people have a lucid dream and they agree to meet each other in the dream and have a conversation in the dream or carry out some task and later talk about it and both confirm the things spoken of in the dream or tasks carried out. I'd say the dream world can be objective to some degree as well.


If they could do that under scientific observation then you'd have a case. Nobody has ever managed to do so though, hence why it can be dismissed.


----------



## jimity

> So you're just going to ignore infrasound, electrical stimulation, and ions then, all which can apply outside? Also, pareidolia can produce a vivid hallucination.


Those people claiming to have seen and heard a ghost never spoke of someone stimulating their brain via wires :lol. And does electrical stimulation cause only ghostly figures appearing in one's peripheral vision or a full blown talking ghost? And pareidola is just seeing a face in an object not in air or when nothing is there. And i wonder how vivid and real a figure can appear when infrasound is the culprit? And I wonder if all these reasons were accounted for what the explanation would be. Not supernatural that's for sure. Just a fabrication.



> Oh let me guess, he was wearing a suit. :roll


Does it really matter whether he was wearing a suit or wearing tan shoes with pink shoelaces and a poker dot vest. To you it would just be a lucky guess just like how people win the lotto jackpot which is perhaps 1 in 50 million chance to get the right numbers.



> I've already explained how the mind can produce vivid hallucinations. You keep trying to move the goalposts and say one way can't account for X while ignoring the other options.


In some cases I think these explain ghosts but I don't believe in all cases these reasons or any other scientific reason apply. Just like how science cannot explain 
demonic possession
weeping statues
ectoplasm
the stigmata
the miracle of Holy Light
psychic manifestations of padre pio like biolocation, 
the appearance of Mary at Fatima and how she said she would appear again at a certain date and time and she did (witnessed by thousands - and being given a date and time for appearing is enough to discount the scientific reasons for seeing things) 
ghosts in photos
lack of bodily decay of saints 
spontaneous human combustion
superhuman strength

The list could go on.



> Also, pareidolia applies as much to sound as it does vision. At least try and do some research before talking about it.


So someone hearing a voice talking to them is simply a distortion of another sound. Yeah right. I'd believe in santas clause or pink unicorns before I believe that one.



> You're missing a major point here. Lucid dreaming doesn't infer anything supernatural. It's related supernatural claims I have issue with.


Is that because astral projection cannot be scientifically validated? If you are familiar with lucid dreaming and astral projection you'd probably conclude that lucid dreaming is just dreaming and astral projection is something supernatural even if you are a hardcore skeptic. Many a skeptic become believers after experiencing something for themselves.



> People are terrible at discerning fact from fiction under such circumstances, so to prove they were actually travelling out side their body and going to real places they would need to report back on something they couldn't have known about any other way, and the process would have to be repeated with other objective astral projection claimants to rule out chance etc. There is methodology we can use to establish fact from fiction.


People who have been under the knife and in accidents have reported having out of body experiences and hearing and seeing events taking place around them while they were "dead". This suggests that consciousness can be aware of things without the body functioning. So this would suggest that out of body travel is indeed real.



> Someone can claim objective astral projection exists all the want but there is no reason to believe them any more than the actuality of the delusions of a schizophrenic.


Many astral projections are not objective but subjective because most people are too sleepy while doing it and dream images impose themselves onto the astral world. And also the astral dimension is very sensitive to thought so this affects objectivity.



> If they could do that under scientific observation then you'd have a case. Nobody has ever managed to do so though, hence why it can be dismissed.


I have read about people agreeing to meet up in the dream world and claimed to have succeeded on occasions in sharing a dream together, though the dreams tend to be unstable as their minds project their own thoughts in the dream and change the two dreams somewhat. But places and events and characters were in agreement at many parts.

Another claim I read was this guy became lucid in a dream and saw a friend in the dream and went up to him and tried to make him lucid by explaining to him he was just in a dream and then kept telling him to call him when he woke up. The guy claims not long after he woke up his friend rang. He then asked his friend if he had been sleeping not long before and if he remembered any of his dreams. The guy said he couldn't remember any of his dreams but he was asleep and woke up with a desire to call him.

Why dismiss things like this when they hint at something?


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Those people claiming to have seen and heard a ghost never spoke of someone stimulating their brain via wires :lol. And does electrical stimulation cause only ghostly figures appearing in one's peripheral vision or a full blown talking ghost? And pareidola is just seeing a face in an object not in air or when nothing is there. And i wonder how vivid and real a figure can appear when infrasound is the culprit? And I wonder if all these reasons were accounted for what the explanation would be. Not supernatural that's for sure. Just a fabrication.


Full blown hallucinations are plausible under various means I've mentioned. We'd need to do case studies to look at what particular answer could be most plausible for individual cases, as of course not all apply to all.



> Does it really matter whether he was wearing a suit or wearing tan shoes with pink shoelaces and a poker dot vest. To you it would just be a lucky guess just like how people win the lotto jackpot which is perhaps 1 in 50 million chance to get the right numbers.


It's undoubtedly the result of a guess. People make the error of thinking their correct guesses have significance all the time, as they just ignore all the incorrect guesses and forget them. It's called selection bias.



> In some cases I think these explain ghosts but I don't believe in all cases these reasons or any other scientific reason apply. Just like how science cannot explain demonic possession and weeping statues, the stigmata and psychic manifestations of padre pio, the appearance of Mary at Fatima and how she said she would appear again at a certain date and time and she did (witnessed by thousands), ectoplasm, ghosts in photos, lack of bodily decay of saints, spontaneous human combustion, superhuman strength ect.


I'm familiar with many of these, and I'm familiar with the debunking of them as well. We've been over some of them here at length in the past, and this thread would go to at least another 10 pages if we examined them. To claim science can't explain them is just as ignorant as you not knowing about all the rational explanations for ghosts I taught you in this thread.

Regarding weeping statues, I particularly like the case in India where it was discovered the the tears coming from the Virgin Mary's statues eyes was actually sewage from a leaking pipe. People were drinking it thinking it was holy water. How apt! :lol



> So someone hearing a voice talking to them is simply a distortion of another sound. Yeah right. I'd believe in santas clause or pink unicorns before I believe that one.


Well there are many psychological studies which can show you are wrong. Have you honestly never heard something and thought it was something else? A good example of aural pareidolia is EVP (Electronic voice phenomenon) where someone hears voices on a tape of radio/white noise. Just like as we can do when looking at random images, (clouds are a common one), some people can hear what they think are voices. It's due to the brain trying to make sense of the chaos and find patterns, which it sometimes does, even though they aren't actually there. It's the mind getting confused and hallucinating. Voices and faces are the two most commonly perceived things in pareidolia since we are so sensitive to them for obvious reasons.



> Is that because astral projection cannot be scientifically validated? If you are familiar with lucid dreaming and astral projection you'd probably conclude that lucid dreaming is just dreaming and astral projection is something supernatural even if you are a hardcore skeptic. Many a skeptic become believers after experiencing something for themselves.


Anecdotal tales mean nothing, as I know first hand from having "travelled" to what appeared to be other realities etc just as one could do when having what they deem to be an objective astral projection experience. I know they are very compelling experiences and I can see why some people might think they are objectively real (and notable, _want_ them to be real), but as I say, until it can be shown to be objectively real then it can be dismissed and just seen as a form of dreaming.



> People who have been under the knife and in accidents have reported having out of body experiences and hearing and seeing events taking place around them while they were "dead". This suggests that consciousness can be aware of things without the body functioning. So this would suggest that out of body travel is indeed real.


The largest ever study into this concluded last year and showed the claim didn't stand up to scrutiny. You can read about it here.

There are various rational reason why someone might think they learned of something while unconscious, or even that they weren't fully unconscious at the time they heard certain things. I know I can sometimes hear things happening in real life when i'm sleeping for example, such as things happening on the TV being projected into my dreams. People coming out from being under anaesthetic are usually in a confused state of mind and it can be easy to get an order of events mixed up so as to confuse information they may not even remember seeing/hearing as being learned while they were on the operating table etc for example.



> Many astral projections are not objective but subjective because most people are too sleepy while doing it and dream images impose themselves onto the astral world. And also the astral dimension is very sensitive to thought so this affects objectivity.


Can you explain how a subjective astral projection is different from a lucid dream?



> I have read about people agreeing to meet up in the dream world and claimed to have succeeded on occasions in sharing a dream together, though the dreams tend to be unstable as their minds project their own thoughts in the dream and change the two dreams somewhat. But places and events and characters were in agreement at many parts.
> 
> Another claim I read was this guy became lucid in a dream and saw a friend in the dream and went up to him and tried to make him lucid by explaining to him he was just in a dream and then kept telling him to call him when he woke up. The guy claims not long after he woke up his friend rang. He then asked his friend if he had been sleeping not long before and if he remembered any of his dreams. The guy said he couldn't remember any of his dreams but he was asleep and woke up with a desire to call him.
> 
> Why dismiss things like this when they hint at something?


Those are very weak anecdotal tales:

Two friends dreaming about the same kind of thing. That's not unusual.

Someone's friend waking up with a feeling that he wanted to call him? I bet the guy frequently felt like calling his friend, as friends do, so it was just co-incidence that the other guy had dreamt about him around the same time. That's not unusual.

That's as silly as people who think there is something spooky going on when they think of a friend and they they call. It's obvious co-incidence considering how many times people think about their friends that at least sometimes the thought of a friend and the friend then calling will coincide.

You're giving me no reason not to dismiss them as the usual fallacies in reasoning humans display all the time and are well documented in psychology.


----------



## jimity

> Regarding weeping statues, I particularly like the case in India where it was discovered the the tears coming from the Virgin Mary's statues eyes was actually sewage from a leaking pipe. People were drinking it thinking it was holy water. How apt! :lol


But that is one case. There are other cases of currently unexplained weeping.



> Can you explain how a subjective astral projection is different from a lucid dream?


Can't walk around like you can do in a lucid dream. You either can hardly move at all or you move around like there is no friction on the ground and it can be difficult to stop moving or to get going.

Turning a lucid dream into an astral projection I find results in a loss of gravity in the environment and you'll be floating around or feel like you are swimming in water.

I often get harassed by frightening creatures in astral projections which have never happened in any of my lucid dreams.

Astral projections have little to do with how real and vivid the experience looks and feels. I've had wake initiated lucid dreams which felt like I was awake and walking around in real life but that wasn't an astral projection.

Whether astral projection is just another form of lucid dreaming or not it is different than both dream and wake initiated lucid dreams.



> [*]Two friends dreaming about the same kind of thing. That's not unusual.


Then shared dreaming is more common than people think.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> But that is one case. There are other cases of currently unexplained weeping.


Of course, I mentioned it as it's one of amusing note. We'd need to look into specific cases regarding others. The fact is though that none when credibly investigated stand up to scrutiny. Water coming from a statue with absolutely no rational reason is a very easy thing to demonstrate to any investigator who could credibly confirm it. It speaks volumes that no such case exists in any credible publication. There are only anecdotal tales and rational reasons for it happening.



> Can't walk around like you can do in a lucid dream. You either can hardly move at all or you move around like there is no friction on the ground and it can be difficult to stop moving or to get going.
> 
> Turning a lucid dream into an astral projection I find results in a loss of gravity in the environment and you'll be floating around or feel like you are swimming in water.
> 
> I often get harassed by frightening creatures in astral projections which have never happened in any of my lucid dreams.
> 
> Astral projections have little to do with how real and vivid the experience looks and feels. I've had wake initiated lucid dreams which felt like I was awake and walking around in real life but that wasn't an astral projection.
> 
> Whether astral projection is just another form of lucid dreaming or not it is different than both dream and wake initiated lucid dreams.


That all sounds very like various dream states I'm used to. Just because it's not the same as 'normal' or lucid dream states why do you choose to call it astral projection? You've already diverted from what astral projection is under most people's definition that I've spoken to, such as admitting it might just be subjective.



> Then shared dreaming is more common than people think.


But it's not shared dreaming. It's coincidental dream content. Our dreams are generally believed to be our brains way of sorting out the data that it consumed before it is filed away to memory etc, so two friends who have been hanging out have a high chance of having a dream that night which has various similarities and themes since they had similar waking experiences. Comparing dreams the next day could lead to them thinking the had a 'shared dream', when it was actually just coincidence due to their actual shared experience when awake prior.


----------



## jimity

> You've already diverted from what astral projection is under most people's definition that I've spoken to, such as admitting it might just be subjective.


And what is their definition of it? You asked for a subjective astral projection versus lucid dreaming and that is what it was to me. I've never experienced an "objective astral projection" or "objective lucid dream" where I could confirm something in the real world. And I've already mentioned that most astral projections are more on the subjective side and gave you reasons for why I think that.

And as to why I call such an experience an astral projection rather than just a lucid dream is because of my belief in an astral world based on things I've read and the experience had matched things I read about what you would experience in an astral projection.

You claim to have experienced similar things as I described then I say your consciousness shifted into your astral body, away from the dream body, and you experienced the astral world instead.



> But it's not shared dreaming. It's coincidental dream content. Our dreams are generally believed to be our brains way of sorting out the data that it consumed before it is filed away to memory etc, so two friends who have been hanging out have a high chance of having a dream that night which has various similarities and themes since they had similar waking experiences. Comparing dreams the next day could lead to them thinking the had a 'shared dream', when it was actually just coincidence due to their actual shared experience when awake prior.


I've lived with my brother for over 20 years and sometimes spoke about our dreams and never did they match. They were always completely different despite us living under the same roof and often being around one another many hours during the day.

And your missing the most important part of the dream. The interaction. You're focusing on the environment/characters. The fact that two people agreed to attempt a shared dream and they interacted with each other and later confirmed so and so had said/done this and so and so had said/done that is interesting Perhaps the dream environment and characters might have been influenced by sharing experiences throughout the day but interaction? I doubt that very much.


----------



## knightofdespair

I've heard a lot of bad stories about people who messed around with these things. No real upside and possibly opening yourself up to a lot of bad stuff.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> And what is their definition of it? You asked for a subjective astral projection versus lucid dreaming and that is what it was to me. I've never experienced an "objective astral projection" or "objective lucid dream" where I could confirm something in the real world. And I've already mentioned that most astral projections are more on the subjective side and gave you reasons for why I think that.
> 
> And as to why I call such an experience an astral projection rather than just a lucid dream is because of my belief in an astral world based on things I've read and the experience had matched things I read about what you would experience in an astral projection.
> 
> You claim to have experienced similar things as I described then I say your consciousness shifted into your astral body, away from the dream body, and you experienced the astral world instead.


Saying astral projection is just subjective isn't what anyone else I've spoken to about astral projection says it is. They say it means you literally leave your body and move to an objective "astral plane". You say you've never had such an objective astral projection, but then you say you believe they exist. Why? Just because some people have told you they believed they weren't just dreaming?



> I've lived with my brother for over 20 years and sometimes spoke about our dreams and never did they match. They were always completely different despite us living under the same roof and often being around one another many hours during the day.


That doesn't mean some people won't have similar dreams though does it?



> And your missing the most important part of the dream. The interaction. You're focusing on the environment/characters. The fact that two people agreed to attempt a shared dream and they interacted with each other and later confirmed so and so had said/done this and so and so had said/done that is interesting Perhaps the dream environment and characters might have been influenced by sharing experiences throughout the day but interaction? I doubt that very much.


I have much scepticism about the legitimacy of such a claim, and again it's something which could easily be tested under scientific conditions, yet no such experiments have shown it to be possible.

I think this really all comes down to your world-view being one which is led by what you like the sound of so want to believe in, and you don't mind being credulous to maintain that. I on the other hand have my world-view led by what can be credibly shown to exist, even if it's not as attractive or interesting as many fantastical beliefs. That's called being intellectually honest and incredulous.


----------



## ugh1979

knightofdespair said:


> I've heard a lot of bad stories about people who messed around with these things. No real upside and possibly opening yourself up to a lot of bad stuff.


Seeing the ideomotor effect in action is an upside, as it's an interesting psychological phenomena. Since I have no concern about anything occult happening I'm as happy now as ever to do one.


----------



## jimity

> Saying astral projection is just subjective isn't what anyone else I've spoken to about astral projection says it is. They say it means you literally leave your body and move to an objective "astral plane".


By "you" I think you mean the astral body moves out of the physical body with a copy of waking consciousness inside of it. Yes I believe that part but the astral plane is highly sensitive to thought and very quickly can become subjective from losing consciousness and the subconscious begins creating it's own scenarios or an REM episode occurs and the person slips into a dream. But yes I also believe the astral plane to be an objective place if the mind doesn't disturb the environment during the projection. People have different definitions of what an astral projection is.



> You say you've never had such an objective astral projection, but then you say you believe they exist. Why? Just because some people have told you they believed they weren't just dreaming?


Yes and see above how I explained an objective astral projection needs a trained mind to stop it from interfering with the astral otherwise it's gets altered and become subjective like a dream.



> That doesn't mean some people won't have similar dreams though does it?


Which says that it isn't exactly repeatable anytime anyone wants to do it and so cannot be tested scientifically or with certainty about it's legitimacy.



> I have much scepticism about the legitimacy of such a claim, and again it's something which could easily be tested under scientific conditions, yet no such experiments have shown it to be possible.


See the answer above. Why can't you just put it down to you don't know how that could occur rather than dismissing it.



> I think this really all comes down to your world-view being one which is led by what you like the sound of so want to believe in, and you don't mind being credulous to maintain that. I on the other hand have my world-view led by what can be credibly shown to exist, even if it's not as attractive or interesting as many fantastical beliefs. That's called being intellectually honest and incredulous.


Not exactly. I don't like the sound of hell yet I still believe in it anyway. I like the sound of people claiming to be time travelers yet I don't believe them at all. But I'm not really bothered if shared dreaming is real or not. I have read about claims of it and it sounds plausible to me and is fun to try to make attempts at it. If I follow step by step instructions of how to do it and still I can't achieve it after many attempts then I'll begin to doubt it is possible. But then what's the motive for making something like that up? I fail to understand that part.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> By "you" I think you mean the astral body moves out of the physical body with a copy of waking consciousness inside of it. Yes I believe that part but the astral plane is highly sensitive to thought and very quickly can become subjective from losing consciousness and the subconscious begins creating it's own scenarios or an REM episode occurs and the person slips into a dream. But yes I also believe the astral plane to be an objective place if the mind doesn't disturb the environment during the projection.


Why do you think you have never had one of those objective astral projections where your 'astral body' has left your physical body and visited an 'astral plane'?



> People have different definitions of what an astral projection is.


You're interpretation is not one i've heard before but hey, you are free to make it up as you go along. 



> Yes and see above how I explained an objective astral projection needs a trained mind to stop it from interfering with the astral otherwise it's gets altered and become subjective like a dream.


Of it could all just be nonsense that people are making up if they have no way of proving that these 'astral planes' they allegedly visit are objectively real.



> Which says that it isn't exactly repeatable anytime anyone wants to do it and so cannot be tested scientifically or with certainty about it's legitimacy.


How convenient. Like a magician who can only do tricks when nobody is looking. That's just pathetic apologetics. :roll



> See the answer above. Why can't you just put it down to you don't know how that could occur rather than dismissing it.


Since there is zero evidence for its legitimacy and just personal testimonies I'd have to then not dismiss anything anybody ever claimed that was also impossible of proving negative. Why should I be open the possibility of objective astral projection but not fairies for example?

You see, when you are so credulous that all you need is someone's story to base your beliefs on you can quickly fall into a fantastical based world-view where anything goes as long as someone says it's true. It's just not a rational mindset.



> Not exactly. I don't like the sound of hell yet I still believe in it anyway. But I'm not really bothered if shared dreaming is real or not. I have read about claims of it and it sounds plausible to me and is fun to try to make attempts at it. If I follow step by step instructions of how to do it and still I can't achieve it after many attempts then I'll begin to doubt it is possible.


OK so I guess there are some supernatural things which you don't like the sound of, but they are very much part of a world-view you want to believe in, so come with the territory.

You won't find many people who believe in hell but not heaven for example.



> But then what's the motive for making something like that up? I fail to understand that part.


You really don't see the appeal of supernatural things being true? That really surprises me coming from you who seems very keen on such things being true, hence why you are so credulous about them. Many people love the idea so want these things to be true, and can easily delude themselves into thinking they are with fallacious thinking and numerous cognitive biases. It's practically human nature to fall for this crap. It's only when scientific standards and intelligent rationale are applied that they can been seen for the nonsense they are.


----------



## jimity

> Why do you think you have never had one of those objective astral projections where your 'astral body' has left your physical body and visited an 'astral plane'?


Maybe because there are things there that are not in the real world such as rooms in my house that are not there in the real world. The astral realm should contain the same stuff as the real world but will change with your thoughts.



> You're interpretation is not one i've heard before but hey, you are free to make it up as you go along.


I'm not just making this up as I type it. This is what I've been led to believe.



> Of it could all just be nonsense that people are making up if they have no way of proving that these 'astral planes' they allegedly visit are objectively real.


But how do they draw their conclusions? From personal experience that's how. Perhaps they went out of body and traveled up the road and saw a car crash which they didn't know took place before hand then later woke up and went to have a look and one really had taken place. And with subsequent verification of events they were convinced astral projection is indeed real.



> How convenient. Like a magician who can only do tricks when nobody is looking. That's just pathetic apologetics. :roll


You said that it doesn't mean dreaming of similar things would happen all the time. And why should it? Maybe 1 out of ten dreams they can do it. Just look at the tests on lucid dreaming. It cant be done ALL the time. People fail at inducing it but it can still be done. Remember we are dealing with people here not some physics or chemistry experiment that can be repeated again and again. But of course you being scientifically minded wouldn't understand the difference when dealing with people now would you 



> Since there is zero evidence for its legitimacy and just personal testimonies I'd have to then not dismiss anything anybody ever claimed that was also impossible of proving negative. Why should I be open the possibility of objective astral projection but not fairies for example?


Well it's ultimately up to you and to use your power of rational thinking and discernment to make up your own mind. Have people made claims of contacting fairies? How large is the literature on fairies is there? How legit do any claims about fairies seem?



> You see, when you are so credulous that all you need is someone's story to base your beliefs on you can quickly fall into a fantastical based world-view where anything goes as long as someone says it's true. It's just not a rational mindset.


Do you believe everything in a science textbook without actually checking sources to see if what they say can be backed up with real evidence?



> OK so I guess there are some supernatural things which you don't like the sound of, but they are very much part of a world-view you want to believe in, so come with the territory.
> 
> You won't find many people who believe in hell but not heaven for example.


And there are things I like the sound of but don't believe in them also such as people claiming they have time traveled. And yet I believe that time travel is possible.



> You really don't see the appeal of supernatural things being true? That really surprises me coming from you who seems very keen on such things being true, hence why you are so credulous about them. Many people love the idea so want these things to be true, and can easily delude themselves into thinking they are with fallacious thinking and numerous cognitive biases. It's practically human nature to fall for this crap. It's only when scientific standards and intelligent rationale are applied that they can been seen for the nonsense they are.


I'm actually more keen on having them either debunked or proven so I can just move on to something else rather than being left with a desire for them to be shown real or not. So far I'm not convinced by the science as much as I am convinced by claims made by people about astral projection and ghosts and other things.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Maybe because there are things there that are not in the real world such as rooms in my house that are not there in the real world. The astral realm should contain the same stuff as the real world but will change with your thoughts.


You really are just making this as you go along aren't you? I've never heard anyone who has talked about astral realms make such claims.



> I'm not just making this up as I type it. This is what I've been led to believe.


I'm not sure I believe you. Then again, i'm sure there are people like you who are happy to decide what they want/think and astral realm is.



> But how do they draw their conclusions? From personal experience that's how. Perhaps they went out of body and traveled up the road and saw a car crash which they didn't know took place before hand then later woke up and went to have a look and one really had taken place. And with subsequent verification of events they were convinced astral projection is indeed real.


There's no reason to believe someone can actually do that. Only if it could be credibly confirmed that they weren't aware of the car crash could there be any credit for astral projection (or more like what's called 'remote viewing' in that case.)

Anyone looking for attention can say they knew events happened before they happened, but none are on credible record as having known about it prior to them learning that it had actually happened. At least not with better chance than luck.

Speaking of remote viewing, the CIA poured millions of dollars into investigating it during the cold war as it would of course have been useful for spying but came up with nothing.



> You said that it doesn't mean dreaming of similar things would happen all the time. And why should it? Maybe 1 out of ten dreams they can do it. Just look at the tests on lucid dreaming. It cant be done ALL the time. People fail at inducing it but it can still be done. Remember we are dealing with people here not some physics or chemistry experiment that can be repeated again and again. But of course you being scientifically minded wouldn't understand the difference when dealing with people now would you


Are you trying to say human behaviour can't be scientifically studied? It doesn't matter if they can only do it once in 10 tries, they could theoretically get as many shots as it as they like. It's all valid data. There's no problem with experiments accounting for that. Nobody is saying they have to do it every single time. Just enough times with enough positive results to show it's legitimacy.



> Well it's ultimately up to you and to use your power of rational thinking and discernment to make up your own mind.


Of course, and I do in the favour or incredulous rationality.



> Have people made claims of contacting fairies? How large is the literature on fairies is there? How legit do any claims about fairies seem?


There is more literature and claims regarding fairies than astral projection, put it that way. Both seem equally illegitimate to me.



> Do you believe everything in a science textbook without actually checking sources to see if what they say can be backed up with real evidence?


I wouldn't read scientific sources that didn't cite the peer reviewed published papers the evidence is drawn from. When you read scientific literature such citations are interwoven into much of it as standard.

I don't believe any single source in isolation. It's when multiple independent credible sources corroborate something it can be considered plausible or fact and be justified to believe to be true.



> And there are things I like the sound of but don't believe in them also such as people claiming they have time traveled. And yet I believe that time travel is possible.


Of course there are some things you reject. I didn't expect you to believe every single thing you'd ever heard.

Time travel to the future is well known to be possible, we've known that for over a hundred years. We can't travel fast enough in order to do it though as you need to approach the speed of light to gain any significant time travel span.

There are some interesting ideas on how time travel to past could be possible, but they are highly speculative and I'm staying on the side of implausibility until evidence which supports it emerges.



> I'm actually more keen on having them either debunked or proven so I can just move on to something else rather than being left with a desire for them to be shown real or not. So far I'm not convinced by the science as much as I am convinced by claims made by people about astral projection and ghosts and other things.


I'd be interested in them as well if I didn't know how thoroughly they had been debunked, hence why I do spend my time on other things which do have evidence, and their plausibility/actuality makes them far more interesting and awesome IMO.  I don't have the credulity or intellectual dishonesty to have any belief in things like objective astral projection and fairies etc.

It's clear you aren't that keen about debunking supernatural claims as you hadn't even heard of any of the rational claims for why people see ghosts. From this and our previous discussions it's clear you suffer from a huge amount of cognitive bias when it comes to these topics.


----------



## jimity

> You really are just making this as you go along aren't you? I've never heard anyone who has talked about astral realms make such claims.


What makes their claims any more legit over mine? The astral realm should contain a copy of the real world and it's happenings. This isn't so radically different from anyone else's perspective as also is the astral realm being subjected to change from the power of thought. If that is so different from other peoples opinion then perhaps you can fill me on what their opinion is.



> I'm not sure I believe you. Then again, i'm sure there are people like you who are happy to decide what they want/think and astral realm is.


Well why don't you? Conclusions are reached from personal experience and things I read and is continually updated or confirmed as new information comes in.



> Are you trying to say human behaviour can't be scientifically studied? It doesn't matter if they can only do it once in 10 tries, they could theoretically get as many shots as it as they like. It's all valid data. There's no problem with experiments accounting for that. Nobody is saying they have to do it every single time. Just enough times with enough positive results to show it's legitimacy.


I was thinking you wanted 100% success 100% of the time to be considered legit and that if they couldn't do it all the time then their claims have been debunked.



> There is more literature and claims regarding fairies than astral projection, put it that way. Both seem equally illegitimate to me.


I don't believe that fairies exist in the physical world only in the astral world.



> I don't have the credulity or intellectual dishonesty to have any belief in things like objective astral projection and fairies etc


But you do have faith that unicorns exist don't you?



> It's clear you aren't that keen about debunking supernatural claims as you hadn't even heard of any of the rational claims for why people see ghosts. From this and our previous discussions it's clear you suffer from a huge amount of cognitive bias when it comes to these topics.


Maybe that's because anytime I've ever heard about supernatural things I'm never offered up scientific reasons for them and concluded there were none and thought that's the reason documentaries and stories don't go on about explaining how a ghost could appear due to there being no known explanation.

But even after reading about some reasons why people would see ghosts I'm not convinced that all claims are due to these reasons.

And you are right I'm not that keen about debunking these things (which might explain why I willingly accept peoples stories) or having them confirmed either since I'm not that keen about the subject as I might come across and really don't care if the are or not and so don't bother with researching the topic as thoroughly.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> What makes their claims any more legit over mine?


I don't deem your or their claims legitimate, but i'm talking about what the popular opinion on the subject is. I've never heard your version. As I say, you are free to make it up as you go along though, as are they. 



> The astral realm should contain a copy of the real world and it's happenings.


"Should"? On whose authority/guidance?



> This isn't so radically different from anyone else's perspective as also is the astral realm being subjected to change from the power of thought. If that is so different from other peoples opinion then perhaps you can fill me on what their opinion is.


Just look at the popular definition of it:

"Astral projection (or astral travel) is an interpretation of an out-of-body experience (OBE) that assumes the existence of an "astral body" separate from the physical body and capable of travelling outside it. Astral projection or travel denotes the astral body leaving the physical body to travel in an astral plane."

You have been talking about a subjective version, where as the popular version is objective based.



> Well why don't you? Conclusions are reached from personal experience and things I read and is continually updated or confirmed as new information comes in.


I don't care what you believe, but I'll point out that your version is highly unorthodox for the topic.



> I was thinking you wanted 100% success 100% of the time to be considered legit and that if they couldn't do it all the time then their claims have been debunked.


Of course not. Any degree of validated success is enough!



> I don't believe that fairies exist in the physical world only in the astral world.


Oh great so now you believe in 'astral fairies' as well.









Is there an astral Loch Ness monster as well? :lol



> But you do have faith that unicorns exist don't you?


No! Whatever gave you that idea? :?



> Maybe that's because anytime I've ever heard about supernatural things I'm never offered up scientific reasons for them and concluded there were none and thought that's the reason documentaries and stories don't go on about explaining how a ghost could appear due to there being no known explanation.
> 
> But even after reading about some reasons why people would see ghosts I'm not convinced that all claims are due to these reasons.


Well until earlier in the thread you didn't even know about rational reasons, so I don't believe you.



> And you are right I'm not that keen about debunking these things (which might explain why I willingly accept peoples stories) or having them confirmed either since I'm not that keen about the subject as I might come across and really don't care if the are or not and so don't bother with researching the topic as thoroughly.


At least you admit you are cognitively biased and haven't researched it enough. :roll I on the other hand have done lots of research on the topic, as I find it a very interesting psychological phenomena.


----------



## jimity

> I don't deem your or their claims legitimate, but i'm talking about what the popular opinion on the subject is. I've never heard your version. As I say, you are free to make it up as you go along though, as are they.


This isn't just "made up" but concluded from experience.



> "Should"? On whose authority/guidance?


From experience itself. That's what the astral dimension is. It contains a copy of the external world but can be affected by thinking.



> Just look at the popular definition of it:
> 
> "Astral projection (or astral travel) is an interpretation of an out-of-body experience (OBE) that assumes the existence of an "astral body" separate from the physical body and capable of travelling outside it. Astral projection or travel denotes the astral body leaving the physical body to travel in an astral plane."
> 
> You have been talking about a subjective version, where as the popular version is objective based.


I agree with the astral body leaving the body and traveling to some objective realm but I go on to say that many experiences in the astral become subjective because of the interference of the mind. But that doesn't mean I don't think the astral realm is entirely subjective. It is also an objective place but each projector has their own subjective experience in it much like here in this physical world.



> I don't care what you believe, but I'll point out that your version is highly unorthodox for the topic.


How so? The astral realm is an objective place you can visit but the experiences on there can be subjective or do I need to explain further?



> Oh great so now you believe in 'astral fairies' as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there an astral Loch Ness monster as well? :lol


Perhaps. There are a lot of creatures in that place. But the real question is are they real or just created from thoughts generated by people? That I cannot answer and until further evidence comes in or I make contact with one and judge for myself then I really just don't know.



> No! Whatever gave you that idea? :?


You! Your reply to me about me telling you how you often talk about unicorns or pink unicorns when talking about how supernatural occurrences could take place.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> This isn't just "made up" but concluded from experience.


Yes you've made it up based on your personal experience.



> From experience itself. That's what the astral dimension is. It contains a copy of the external world but can be affected by thinking.


OK so 'should' as per your personal definition and beliefs on it. That's fine, as I'd never heard of an astral projection doctrine which states divine guidance on the matter.



> I agree with the astral body leaving the body and traveling to some objective realm but I go on to say that many experiences in the astral become subjective because of the interference of the mind. But that doesn't mean I don't think the astral realm is entirely subjective. It is also an objective place but each projector has their own subjective experience in it much like here in this physical world.


OK so you disappoint me even more then with your credulity. :roll



> How so? The astral realm is an objective place you can visit but the experiences on there can be subjective or do I need to explain further?


OK so you have clarified that you do believe it to be an objective place. A lot of your previous comments were talking about what seemed to be inference to a subjective place. (Like when you said, "Many astral projections are not objective but subjective")



> Perhaps. There are a lot of creatures in that place. But the real question is are they real or just created from thoughts generated by people? That I cannot answer and until further evidence comes in or I make contact with one and judge for myself then I really just don't know.


OK so basically anything goes for you then. :lol Astral Harry Potter's, astral big foot, astral unicorns etc etc



> You! Your reply to me about me telling you how you often talk about unicorns or pink unicorns when talking about how supernatural occurrences could take place.


Wow, I can't believe you didn't understand that it was use of simile for something else that is absurd, not something I believe exists.


----------



## jimity

> Yes you've made it up based on your personal experience.


Good enough for me.



> OK so 'should' as per your personal definition and beliefs on it. That's fine, as I'd never heard of an astral projection doctrine which states divine guidance on the matter.


Can you be any more sarcastic.



> OK so you disappoint me even more then with your credulity. :roll


And who do you exactly think you are telling me I should just listen to you so I shouldn't disappoint you.



> OK so you have clarified that you do believe it to be an objective place. A lot of your previous comments were talking about what seemed to be inference to a subjective place. (Like when you said, "Many astral projections are not objective but subjective")


I believe it to be objective just like the physical world but people have subjective experiences there just like dreams. So i'd say many a lot of astral projections would contain subjective experiences rather that purely subjective.



> OK so basically anything goes for you then. :lol Astral Harry Potter's, astral big foot, astral unicorns etc etc


The limit is your imagination. Doesn't mean they could all be real but certainly could be created from sustained thought on a character.



> Wow, I can't believe you didn't understand that it was use of simile for something else that is absurd, not something I believe exists.


Why don't you believe unicorns exist? I've got a pink one as a pet


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Good enough for me.


What a naive world you must live in if you take everything at face value.



> Can you be any more sarcastic.


Why do you think I was being sarcastic? I was just pointing out a fact.



> And who do you exactly think you are telling me I should just listen to you so I shouldn't disappoint you.


Where do I say you should listen to me so as not to disappoint me. You are free to believe what you want, and my disappoint in that is irrelevant.



> I believe it to be objective just like the physical world but people have subjective experiences there just like dreams. So i'd say many a lot of astral projections would contain subjective experiences rather that purely subjective.


You didn't seem to be saying that earlier when I was quizzing your about the objective side to it. So be it though.



> The limit is your imagination. Doesn't mean they could all be real but certainly could be created from sustained thought on a character


Excellent, further confirmation that you are happy to believe anything you can imagine. :roll



> Why don't you believe unicorns exist? I've got a pink one as a pet


I only believe in unicorns cats. I've seen them, so I believe they are da truth man.


----------



## jimity

> What a naive world you must live in if you take everything at face value.


I don't take everything at face value. Now you are exaggerating.



> Why do you think I was being sarcastic? I was just pointing out a fact.


I thought you were saying my opinion was somehow "divine" which I take as sarcasim.



> Where do I say you should listen to me so as not to disappoint me. You are free to believe what you want, and my disappoint in that is irrelevant.


Are you debating with me to correct me or to get me to see your worldview because your one you believe to be more correct?



> Excellent, further confirmation that you are happy to believe anything you can imagine. :roll


No. I was saying if you can imagine something for long enough the imagined thing could take on a life of it's own in either an astral projection or a lucid dream. This doesn't mean it is something that is real.



> I only believe in unicorns cats. I've seen them, so I believe they are da truth man.


And whose the authority on what is called what? If you put a horn on the head of a cat why can't you begin to call it a unicorn cat?


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> I don't take everything at face value. Now you are exaggerating.


I am indeed, but my point is that you have a high tendency to do so rather than too to refer to deeper more learned explanations when it comes to these kind of topics.



> I thought you were saying my opinion was somehow "divine" which I take as sarcasim.


No, just that there is no allegedly divine scripture related to the topic which can act as a guide to what so called astral projection is and isn't.



> Are you debating with me to correct me or to get me to see your worldview because your one you believe to be more correct?


To correct and educate you, along with highlighting the issue with your beliefs for the audience. I know my world-views, I don't need to post them up to know them or validate them.



> No. I was saying if you can imagine something for long enough the imagined thing could take on a life of it's own in either an astral projection or a lucid dream. This doesn't mean it is something that is real.


OK so things in astral projections are objective them you want, and subjective when you want. Strong argument!



> And whose the authority on what is called what? If you put a horn on the head of a cat why can't you begin to call it a unicorn cat?


I can't believe you even need to ask that question. Do you really think dressing up an animal stops it from being the species it is and turns it into a new species. :? A cat is a cat in any garb! (I think that's the first time i've ever had to say that :lol)


----------



## jimity

> To correct and educate you, along with highlighting the issue with your beliefs for the audience. I know my world-views, I don't need to post them up to know them or validate them.


Yeah I bet you also enjoy poking fun at my beliefs.



> OK so things in astral projections are objective them you want, and subjective when you want. Strong argument!


Yes! But I'd need another projector to confirm they also saw and experienced the same thing in their projection for me to consider it objective otherwise I'd lean towards a projection being subjective since there is no other way of knowing what's what.



> I can't believe you even need to ask that question. Do you really think dressing up an animal stops it from being the species it is and turns it into a new species. :? A cat is a cat in any garb! (I think that's the first time i've ever had to say that :lol)


Whose to stop you from naming an animal or object something else instead? It doesn't matter if it's still a cat to everyone else, to you it can be your own little unicorn cat.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Yeah I bet you also enjoy poking fun at my beliefs.


I enjoy highlighting the issues with your beliefs.



> Yes! But I'd need another projector to confirm they also saw and experienced the same thing in their projection for me to consider it objective otherwise I'd lean towards a projection being subjective since there is no other way of knowing what's what.


How one can confirm that and it not be coincidence is the difficult part. It's never been done, hence why it can only be viewed as entirely subjective.



> Whose to stop you from naming an animal or object something else instead? It doesn't matter if it's still a cat to everyone else, to you it can be your own little unicorn cat.


You're honestly asking me why I shouldn't have an issue making up my own definitions for words? Such as a horse is another word for four cats duct taped together for example? :lol :?


----------



## Mfasa

Spirits are 100% real. I've had many experiences with them. Actually everyday... I might even have a spirit that follows me around! 
Call me crazy, but I am really good at sensing things and feeling people's energy. 
I've used a oujia board with just a cardboard box and a penny. Every time I tried it with friends it actually worked and we were able to connect with spirits. The penny would move by itself without us moving it so what else explains that than a ghost? Lol My friend even got to talk to her late father and he asked her for a hug. It was weird but so REAL.


----------



## jimity

> How one can confirm that and it not be coincidence is the difficult part. It's never been done, hence why it can only be viewed as entirely subjective.


That's why people need to keep trying.



> You're honestly asking me why I shouldn't have an issue making up my own definitions for words? Such as a horse is another word for four cats videotaped together for example? :lol :?


Well you explain to me why there is an issue? If you cut a piece of paper into a triangle, why should it no longer be called a piece of paper but a triangle instead ? And your example of a group of animals being together being called another animal is not the same as dressing up an animal and calling it something else. If you duct taped a bunch of cats together then you could call it a horse.


----------



## jimity

Mfasa said:


> Spirits are 100% real. I've had many experiences with them. Actually everyday... I might even have a spirit that follows me around!
> Call me crazy, but I am really good at sensing things and feeling people's energy.
> I've used a oujia board with just a cardboard box and a penny. Every time I tried it with friends it actually worked and we were able to connect with spirits. The penny would move by itself without us moving it so what else explains that than a ghost? Lol My friend even got to talk to her late father and he asked her for a hug. It was weird but so REAL.


Try telling that to ugh1979. He'll claim you were just suffering from cognitive distortions.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> That's why people need to keep trying.


Why do they need to keep trying? Why can't they admit they are wrong and move on to something else? Only a fool keeps flogging a dead horse.



> Well you explain to me why there is an issue? If you cut a piece of paper into a triangle, why should it no longer be called a piece of paper but a triangle instead ? And your example of a group of animals being together being called another animal is not the same as dressing up an animal and calling it something else. If you duct taped a bunch of cats together then you could call it a horse.


You've lost it. :lol


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Try telling that to ugh1979. He'll claim you were just suffering from cognitive distortions.


Or an unfortunate mental illness.


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> Or an unfortunate mental illness.


Sounds like a dig at people with mental illness. Is there something wrong with being mentally ill? Last time I checked you didn't like attacks or digs at other people (think back to me saying gays help spread aids around :smile2: )


----------



## jimity

> Why do they need to keep trying? Why can't they admit they are wrong and move on to something else? Only a fool keeps flogging a dead horse.


Then why do you persist in correcting others with their beliefs and ideas? Wouldn't that be considered flogging a dead horse :lol



> You've lost it. :lol


No i haven't.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Sounds like a dig at people with mental illness. Is there something wrong with being mentally ill? Last time I checked you didn't like attacks or digs at other people (think back to me saying gays help spread aids around :smile2: )


Can you explain why you think it's a dig at people with mental illness?


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Then why do you persist in correcting others with their beliefs and ideas? Wouldn't that be considered flogging a dead horse :lol


Promoting rationality and intellectual honesty is always a worthy cause.



> No i haven't.


Says the guy who is happy to make up words to describe well defined things.


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> Can you explain why you think it's a dig at people with mental illness?


To me it sounds like you think people who see ghosts or experience supernatural phenomenon might just being mentally insane or disturbed.


----------



## jimity

> Promoting rationality and intellectual honesty is always a worthy cause.


And what's your success rate at converting the disbeliever?



> Says the guy who is happy to make up words to describe well defined things.


You tell me why you think I've lost my marbles? You're the sort of person to make people "mentally ill" by telling them there is something wrong with doing a harmless behavior and that there is something wrong with them too.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> To me it sounds like you think people who see ghosts or experience supernatural phenomenon might just being mentally insane or disturbed.


Some undoubtedly are. That's not a dig though. It's just a fact that some mental illnesses cause hallucinations.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> And what's your success rate at converting the disbeliever?


I don't think any single source influences people in such a way. It's an array of sources that influence peoples beliefs over time. Nobody reads one thing and totally changes their world-view.



> You tell me why you think I've lost my marbles?


I said you'd "lost it" when you started saying it's fine to make up your own terms for things. Such as with a straight face saying a cat dressed as a unicorn can be called a unicorn cat. No, it's still a just a cat!



> You're the sort of person to make people "mentally ill" by telling them there is something wrong with doing a harmless behavior and that there is something wrong with them too.


Someone being wrong doesn't necessary mean there is something wrong with them from a mental health perspective.

I wouldn't call the promotion of irrationality and credulity necessary harmless though. (Look at anti-vaxxers for example to name but one)


----------



## jimity

> I don't think any single source influences people in such a way. It's an array of sources that influence peoples beliefs over time. Nobody reads one thing and totally changes their world-view.


When I heard of astral projection and about the planes of existence I became a believer in an afterlife. Pretty big change for me.



> I said you'd "lost it" when you started saying it's fine to make up your own terms for things. Such as with a straight face saying a cat dressed as a unicorn can be called a unicorn cat. No, it's still a just a cat!


People make up new words to describe things and people all the time. Just look at urbandictionary.com



> I wouldn't call the promotion of irrationality and credulity necessary harmless though. (Look at anti-vaxxers for example to name but one)


Is astral projection another one of those harmful things? Hardly. And it's not like you're against all things harmful. I know that you're against psychedelic drugs being illegal when they can in fact mess up ones mental health and lead to risky behavior.


----------



## Harbinger1

Me and my friends from highschool once played around with an ouiji board. It was pretty scary. The 5 of us sat around in a circle surrounding the board. We followed all the rules. It was dark with only a couple of candes lit for light. We all put a hand on the board and then we asked: Who are you? The board actually moved! We all blamed each other, but nobody was doing it. It spelled: "ghost". We were very scared as you might understand. Then we asked what it wanted and to our surprise it spelled: "buttsex".
So not only are there ghosts, they are also crazy horny. Maybe one of my friends tricked us, but I don't think so. Horny ghosts is a much more logical explanation


----------



## slyfox

Ouija boards are just a piece of cardboard. They are no more powerful than any other divination method. They are just more readily available to the average person, so more people have or claim to have paranormal experiences with them. I'm open to the possibility of the paranormal, but I don't think think Ouija boards are deserving of the special attention they get. 

The few times I've used the one I own I haven't been impressed. Only got messages one of the times I used it with my girlfriend, but she could have been influencing it unconsciously(ideomotor effect). Many of the results were things she was worried about.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> When I heard of astral projection and about the planes of existence I became a believer in an afterlife. Pretty big change for me.


You were undoubtedly already keen on the supernatural. You seem to believe just about everything related to it.



> People make up new words to describe things and people all the time. Just look at urbandictionary.com


I think you're losing sight of what we were talking about. A cat is still called a cat even if it's dressed as a unicorn.



> Is astral projection another one of those harmful things? Hardly.


No it's not, hence why I didn't say it was, but my point remains that it's part of a bigger culture of irrationality and credulity, some of which can be harmful.

As I say, when irrational beliefs lead to people being anti-vaxxers or anti-man made climate change etc then those are clearly harmful beliefs, not just for them, but with implications for others, and that's more important than what risks one chooses to make with their own welfare.



> And it's not like you're against all things harmful. I know that you're against psychedelic drugs being illegal when they can in fact mess up ones mental health and lead to risky behavior.


Everything has a degree of risk in it. Prescription drugs, alcohol or in fact too much of anything can mess up ones mental health and lead to risky behaviour. Psychedelic drugs can be statistically shown to be safer than a lot of legal pursuits, (such as various sports and physical activities), and can in fact improve ones mental health if used responsibly. (Just like prescription drugs). Never confuse use and abuse. For example, if you use your car safely to get from A to B there's a high chance you'll be fine, but if you abuse the use of your car there is a high chance your journey could end up in tragedy.


----------



## jimity

> As I say, when irrational beliefs lead to people being anti-vaxxers or anti-man made climate change etc then those are clearly harmful beliefs, not just for them, but with implications for others, and that's more important than what risks one chooses to make with their own welfare.


Don't most people who believe in man made climate change still fly around in planes and drive around in cars and own all these electronic power sucking gadgets and eat beef, and do little feel-good things like put on a save-the-planet bumper sticker on their gas sucking car and turn off their lights for an hour each year thinking they're saving the planet :lol



> Everything has a degree of risk in it. Prescription drugs, alcohol or in fact too much of anything can mess up ones mental health and lead to risky behaviour.


That's no excuse for allowing other risky things in society.



> Psychedelic drugs can be statistically shown to be safer than a lot of legal pursuits, (such as various sports and physical activities), and can in fact improve ones mental health if used responsibly. (Just like prescription drugs). Never confuse use and abuse. For example, if you use your car safely to get from A to B there's a high chance you'll be fine, but if you abuse the use of your car there is a high chance your journey could end up in tragedy.


Just like how people argue that alcohol and tobacco kill far more people than illegal drugs, especially psychedelics, it's probably because alcohol/tobacco are far more accessible and socially acceptable to use than psychedelics. So playing sports is more dangerous than taking drugs could only be because more people do sport than use psychedelic drugs.

Improving one's mental health when used responsibly? In many cases people are simply playing russian roulette with their mental health. You cannot be sure of an outcome when using these sorts of things, especially without the use of a trained professional.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Don't most people who believe in man made climate change still fly around in planes and drive around in cars and own all these electronic power sucking gadgets and eat beef, and do little feel-good things like put on a save-the-planet bumper sticker on their gas sucking car and turn off their lights for an hour each year thinking they're saving the planet :lol


It's very hard for anyone to be carbon neutral/negative at the moment due to the industrial level issue of how energy is created. That's changing though, and every little action helps (be that an individuals person attempts at being more green or using their lobbying/voting power to help to encourage political establishments who have the power to make the big changes be in place). Surely you understand that? Maybe not?

I'm not sure what you reply really has to do with the point though, which is the fact that denying man made climate change and therefore doing nothing is harmful.

What's your thoughts on vaccinations and man-made climate change btw?



> That's no excuse for allowing other risky things in society.


So what are you saying? Anything that exceeds a certain risk assessed value should be illegal?



> Just like how people argue that alcohol and tobacco kill far more people than illegal drugs, especially psychedelics, it's probably because alcohol/tobacco are far more accessible and socially acceptable to use than psychedelics. So playing sports is more dangerous than taking drugs could only be because more people do sport than use psychedelic drugs.


Well then you'd be wrong. Numbers of people doing something is obviously accounted for in studies so it's the pro-rata figures that are compared.

One of the most highly regarded medical journals in the world (_The Lancet_) published this graph as part of a study of the harmfulness of various recreational drugs a couple of years ago:










So, to the contrary, psychedelics are among the safest, and are _the _safest in regards to the potential harm to others.



> Improving one's mental health when used responsibly? In many cases people are simply playing russian roulette with their mental health. You cannot be sure of an outcome when using these sorts of things, especially without the use of a trained professional.


As I say, there is risk in everything. That's why proscription medicines come with various warmings and disclaimers since they will have negative effect on a minority. It's the same with psychedelic drugs. Calling something with such a low risk of harm 'Russian Roulette' is absurd though. They ideally should be taken under guidance until someone learns about them sufficiently, and then always with responsibility, (as per with anything), and that's something which is often actively encouraged in the scene.

Back to the risk analysis of drugs versus other activities, there is more chance of dying horse riding than taking ecstasy for example. However, as I say, just because something has a low risk doesn't mean it shouldn't be done if the chances of it having benefits to ones life are high. Do you think you are playing Russian Roulette every time you get a in a car for example? (Which incidentally has a 1 in 144 chance of killing you over the course of your life)

I suspect have generally have poor risk analysis skills, probably due to the perverted ignorance of certain media outlets on certain topics which have brainwashed you.


----------



## jimity

> It's very hard for anyone to be carbon neutral/negative at the moment due to the industrial level issue of how energy is created. That's changing though, and every little action helps (be that an individuals person attempts at being more green or using their lobbying/voting power to help to encourage political establishments who have the power to make the big changes be in place). Surely you understand that? Maybe not?


And when fuel prices go up the population complains about it so it's only the highest paid who want something done will vote for 100% green and expensive energy. And there is a lot people can do already now. Stop eating meat, use public transport, ride a bike, buy solar panels, stop wasting power, stop having children.



> I'm not sure what you reply really has to do with the point though, which is the fact that denying man made climate change and therefore doing nothing is harmful.


My point was that many people who believe in something refuse to make significant changes in their lifestyle because they know it means giving up their car, meat and right to have as many children as they want. And people who do believe in it and have power to change it won't because there is too much money to lose. So just because people have a belief in something doesn't mean they'll act on it.



> What's your thoughts on vaccinations and man-made climate change btw?


I'm all for vaccinations. As for climate change. If I'm going to be slugged 4x the price of power to "save the planet" I won't vote for anyone who want to jack up the price of stuff to save the planet.



> So what are you saying? Anything that exceeds a certain risk assessed value should be illegal?


If it's drugs then I think they should remain illegal. Go find something else to do for fun. Get high on life.



> As I say, there is risk in everything. That's why proscription medicines come with various warmings and disclaimers since they will have negative effect on a minority. It's the same with psychedelic drugs. Calling something with such a low risk of harm 'Russian Roulette' is absurd though. They ideally should be taken under guidance until someone learns about them sufficiently, and then always with responsibility, (as per with anything), and that's something which is often actively encouraged in the scene.


But prescription drugs are their to help people NOT for recreational use which psychedelics are primarily used for.



> Back to the risk analysis of drugs versus other activities, there is more chance of dying horse riding than taking ecstasy for example. However, as I say, just because something has a low risk doesn't mean it shouldn't be done if the chances of it having benefits to ones life are high. Do you think you are playing Russian Roulette every time you get a in a car for example? (Which incidentally has a 1 in 144 chance of killing you over the course of your life)


I wonder how many people benefit from recreational drug use compared to those use suffer from it. Probably just a handful of people who have any truly lasting positive impact compared to countless lives ruined or changed for the worse because of them.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> And when fuel prices go up the population complains about it so it's only the highest paid who want something done will vote for 100% green and expensive energy.


Green energy sources won't become dominant until it becomes cheaper than polluting energy sources. That is slowly happening though, and the tipping point will be when fuel prices rise so much that it's no longer economically beneficial to use it. That's how it hopefully will be. There is a complex web of economics and technologies in various states of maturity that will transform everyone to green energy.

If anything it's often the rich who care the least since they can afford expensive fuel and a lot of them make money from polluting energy production and infrastructure and technologies which support that. Thankfully more and more of them are waking up to the fact that the smart money is now going into green energy.



> And there is a lot people can do already now. Stop eating meat, use public transport, ride a bike, buy solar panels, stop wasting power, stop having children.


In your previous post you were laughing at people for doing that and thinking it would make any difference. :? You seem to have done a complete u-turn.



> My point was that many people who believe in something refuse to make significant changes in their lifestyle because they know it means giving up their car, meat and right to have as many children as they want. And people who do believe in it and have power to change it won't because there is too much money to lose. So just because people have a belief in something doesn't mean they'll act on it.


Indeed there are obviously conflicts of interest, which means there generally has to be balance rather than absolutes towards green goals. There are always greener ways of going things though and it's those that can be embraced and increasingly are. As I said above in this post, those in power are in fact increasingly wakening up to the fact that not doing anything is going to lead to magnitudes more issues and loss of money than doing something. Why do you think the recent Paris Climate Conference came to agreements it did?



> I'm all for vaccinations.


That's about the first thing we've agreed on. :lol



> As for climate change. If I'm going to be slugged 4x the price of power to "save the planet" I won't vote for anyone who want to jack up the price of stuff to save the planet.


Who's saying fuel needs to be four times as expensive? Voting for green policies means more investment in green technologies which will keep brining the consumer costs of green technologies down. The price of polluting fuels will continue to rise as it's rightfully further taxed and phased out but that will also soon mean a tipping point will be met when it becomes cheaper to use green energy sources. That's one of the main goals for significant transformation to a sustainable clean future.



> If it's drugs then I think they should remain illegal. Go find something else to do for fun. Get high on life.


What an ignorant naive thing to say. :roll Why should one thing that is enjoyable not be as valid as anything else as long as it's relatively safe? It's as mindless as saying vacations should be banned since some people come to harm/die when on vacation. What do you have against drugs? It's sad you clearly live a life where you have never experienced any or many of the wonderful alternative states of conciousness. For someone who says they like astral projection that comes as a surprise, since there are people who draw parallels between them and certain psychedelic experiences.

What not trying exploring more of what's possible in life rather than staying to the mundane middle?



> But prescription drugs are their to help people NOT for recreational use which psychedelics are primarily used for.


So what? We were talking about risk vs benefit.



> I wonder how many people benefit from recreational drug use compared to those use suffer from it. Probably just a handful of people who have any truly lasting positive impact compared to countless lives ruined or changed for the worse because of them.


This is just gross ignorance. A minority of people who use drugs, just as with alcohol have any significant issue with them, and of course not all drugs are equal.

Here are the results of a large scale poll of drugs users which rate how positive or negative different drugs are on their lives:










Source

As you can see, it's actually tobacco and alcohol that have the least positive effect on people's lives, yet bizarrely they are the ones which are legal.

I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself making such comments which sound like you learned from them from Fox News. :lol You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are highly ignorant of the hundreds of millions of people who enjoy recreational drugs and benefit from them. Since all you know are the negative reports you learn about on Fox News or whatever trashy news outlets I suspect you read your knowledge of the subject greatly suffers from their media bias.


----------



## jimity

> Green energy sources won't become dominant until it becomes cheaper than polluting energy sources.


That's the only way it will be.



> In your previous post you were laughing at people for doing that and thinking it would make any difference. :? You seem to have done a complete u-turn.


I was laughing at people who think they're saving the planet by doing little feel-good things like switching off lights for an hour once a year or putting environmental bumper stickers on their car but continue pumping out children, driving cars, flying around on planes, buying loads of things they don't really need and so forth.



> those in power are in fact increasingly wakening up to the fact that not doing anything is going to lead to magnitudes more issues and loss of money than doing something.


Does that include Obama who thinks climate change is very serious but continues to allow fracking and the purchase of canadian tar sand oil?



> Why do you think the recent Paris Climate Conference came to agreements it did?


What was that all about again?
A disclosure of emissions every five years. 
No legally bound emissions reductions.
A group of clowns who can't agree on how to tackle a 2 degree rise so a 1.5 degree limit is aimed for.
It's a joke just like Kyoto.



> The price of polluting fuels will continue to rise as it's rightfully further taxed and phased out but that will also soon mean a tipping point will be met when it becomes cheaper to use green energy sources. That's one of the main goals for significant transformation to a sustainable clean future.


The price of oil has dropped significantly. If electric cars become more popular and cause demand to drop in oil that will just drop the price so cheap people will probably just resort to oil again. And a sustainable clean future requires a drop in human population not just clean energy.



> Why should one thing that is enjoyable not be as valid as anything else as long as it's relatively safe? It's as mindless as saying vacations should be banned since some people come to harm/die when on vacation. What do you have against drugs? It's sad you clearly live a life where you have never experienced any or many of the wonderful alternative states of conciousness. For someone who says they like astral projection that comes as a surprise, since there are people who draw parallels between them and certain psychedelic experiences.
> 
> What not trying exploring more of what's possible in life rather than staying to the mundane middle?


Why should something like horse riding or sports be legal but not drugs? It's because drugs impact judgement and create risk for the user and other people, no matter how responsible the user is. Not only that it's the tax payer who foots the bill for users who end up in the er. And drug affected users who call for medical help because they think they're dying take up services that could be used for people who might be having a heart attack or some other medical complication. It's one less thing people have to deal with.

And banning something like vaccinations because it causes some deaths is stupid because far more would occur if they were banned.

But the fact is many people cannot access a lot of illegal drugs because they are illegal and this has no doubt saved lives.

I used to be very interested in psychedelic drugs but failed to get hold of them simply because they were illegal. And I'm glad for it.



> So what? We were talking about risk vs benefit.


So drugs bring people some pleasure but that isn't really a benefit. People might have undiagnosed heart conditions and then take a drug like cocaine or amphetamine or even have a severe panic attack on psychedelic drugs which could cause heart failure or a heart attack.



> This is just gross ignorance. A minority of people who use drugs, just as with alcohol have any significant issue with them, and of course not all drugs are equal.


But the fact is there are always people with no self control and this is a reason to keep them illegal. The government is protecting people from themselves and children from being exposed to adults on drugs.



> As you can see, it's actually tobacco and alcohol that have the least positive effect on people's lives, yet bizarrely they are the ones which are legal.


I do find it hypocritical for the government to keep alcohol and tobacco legal so as to not impinge on the rights of it's citizens while banning everything else, but I believe that one day alcohol and tobacco will be banned or at least taxed out of popularity or become socially unacceptable.



> I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself making such comments which sound like you learned from them from Fox News. :lol


Funny I don't feel embarrassed at all.



> You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are highly ignorant of the hundreds of millions of people who enjoy recreational drugs and benefit from them. Since all you know are the negative reports you learn about on Fox News or whatever trashy news outlets I suspect you read your knowledge of the subject greatly suffers from their media bias.


Drugs are used mainly for selfish reasons anyway. And it's the negative side of drugs which are more important to focus on since it's the side that the user wants to ignore. People should be pouring their time into study or community service or something that actually benefits other people rather than getting high or wanting to see colors and shapes and melting walls. And I wonder what the user constitutes as a benefit? Maybe they thought seeing a pink unicorn was really cool :lol


----------



## unemployment simulator

not really too interested in ouiji boards, trying to capture audio or visual evidence is a bit more interesting to me. I try and approach things from a rational and skeptical perspective and try to prove the existance of anything paranormal. there is loads of kit out there that is waaaay too easy to debunk and is more likely to be things like suggestion. like the spirit box, I am quite skeptical of it since people can easily turn combinations of vowels and consonants in to a word that is related to something important with the element of suggestion. but getting a clear voice on your audio recorder which is no one elses and ruling out any other contamination is a bit more like something concrete. I hope to go out and do some more of this sort of stuff next year, although you kind of need friends unless you fancy doing it alone.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> I was laughing at people who think they're saving the planet by doing little feel-good things like switching off lights for an hour once a year or putting environmental bumper stickers on their car but continue pumping out children, driving cars, flying around on planes and so forth.


Every little helps though. It's a process of change and a balance.



> Does that include Obama who thinks climate change is very serious but continues to allow fracking and the purchase of canadian tar sand oil?


Again, it's a process of change. You can't just say no more fossil fuels at all. Fracking and Tar Sand Oil are greener than coal for example, plus they have the significant benefit for political reasons of meaning Middle Eastern oil isn't needed as much. That's a separate but also very important point. The less income the Saudi Arabian government gets the better! (Within reason)



> What was that all about again?
> A disclosure of emissions every five years.
> No legally bound emissions reductions.
> A group of clowns who can't agree on how to tackle a 2 degree rise so a 1.5 degree limit is aimed for.
> It's a joke just like Kyoto.


It's better than doing nothing, and it was pretty much as good as could be realistically hoped for most experts agree. It's progress. What would be your solution?



> The price of oil has dropped significantly. If electric cars become more popular and cause demand to drop in oil that will just drop the price so cheap people will probably just resort to oil again.


It's not just fuel for cars that dictate the price of oil, it's a huge range of industries. The thing is, you won't see governments let the related corporations slash the price of fuel for vehicles as that would be counter productive to their emissions goals. Prices may stop rising though with the savings made being taken in increased tax to help funds the trillions needed for green development.



> And a sustainable clean future requires a drop in human population not just clean energy.


That's debatable, as it depends on how much energy green technologies can provide. If something like fusion energy becomes available then it certainly doesn't. It's the far less energy hungry nations that the population is most significantly rising in anyway.



> Why should something like horse riding or sports be legal but not drugs? It's because drugs impact judgement and create risk for the user and other people, no matter how responsible the user is.


I assume you want alcohol banned as well then yeah, since it impacts judgement the most and creates the most risks to the user and other people?

The impact to judgement for many drugs is negligible anyway, especially when used responsibly.

Certain sports create comparable or even bigger risks for the participant and for some sports other people as well.

As I say, you can't say something should be illegal because it has just any level of risk.



> Not only that it's the tax payer who foots the bill for users who end up in the er. And drug affected users who call for medical help because they think they're dying take up services that could be used for people who might be having a heart attack or some other medical complication. It's one less thing people have to deal with.


The same goes for hospital admissions from just about anything else recreational. Should they be banned from doing it for the same reason?



> And banning something like vaccinations because it causes some deaths is stupid because far more would occur if they were banned.


I said vacations, not vaccinations. :lol



> But the fact is many people cannot access a lot of illegal drugs because they are illegal and this has no doubt saved lives.


Lots of people don't have access to cars, horses to ride or ski equipment for example which has no doubt saved lives. So what's your point?



> I used to be very interested in psychedelic drugs but failed to get hold of them simply because they were illegal. And I'm glad for it.


How can you be glad about not experiencing something you clearly know nothing about? Believe me, they are VERY interesting and you would love them. There are plenty good legal psychedelics around btw. 



> So drugs bring people some pleasure but that isn't really a benefit.


Drugs bring pretty much everyone who takes them pleasure, not just 'some'. Why would they take them otherwise? :? How you can say pleasure isn't a benefit is beyond belief!



> People might have undiagnosed heart conditions and then take a drug like cocaine or amphetamine or even have a severe panic attack on psychedelic drugs which could cause heart failure or a heart attack.


The latter is pretty much unheard of, and while the former can happen, the risk isn't any higher than issues that can occur due to alcohol or various sports for example.



> But the fact is there are always people with no self control and this is a reason to keep them illegal. The government is protecting people from themselves and children from being exposed to adults on drugs.


That's got nothing to do with what you were replying to. You were claiming people have more negative experiences than positive on drugs and I clearly showed you were wrong. Don't try and sweep it under the carpet with a non-sequitur.

The issue with them being illegal is that it's unjustifiable if the law is based on risk since it can be shown many of these drugs are less harmful than many legal things. That's no way to legislate. Also, there is a growing trend for legalisation of cannabis and reform of drug laws so things are changing to be more justifiable.

Drugs being illegal causes great harm due to the millions of lives it destroys due to incarceration. Plus, the war on drugs is a miserable failure than has wasted trillions of dollars and has directly helped fund terrorists to some degree and brutal cartels entirely, who are responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of people.



> I do find it hypocritical for the government to keep alcohol and tobacco legal so as to not impinge on the rights of it's citizens while banning everything else, but I believe that one day alcohol and tobacco will be banned or at least taxed out of popularity or become socially unacceptable.


High taxes for such things are fine by me, and I encourage private use of most substances since they aren't generally socially suitable.

That's fine though, as it maintains the personal freedom everyone should have and their civil liberties. Banning substances like psychedelic drugs, which our species has been using for at least tens of thousands of years if not a lot lot longer is in violation of human rights IMO.



> Funny I don't feel embarrassed at all.


I suspect I know why.



> Drugs are used mainly for selfish reasons anyway. And it's the negative side of drugs which are more important to focus on since it's the side that the user wants to ignore. People should be pouring their time into study or community service or something that actually benefits other people rather than getting high or wanting to see colors and shapes and melting walls.


That's just gross ignorance again. You could say the same thing about going to the movies or going on vacation, which are just as 'selfish'. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing recreation _and _study/charity. To only do the latter would mean a pretty sad limited life. Quite inhuman actually.


----------



## jimity

> Every little helps though. It's a process of change and a balance.


Doesn't mean **** in the long run for the planet.



> Again, it's a process of change. You can't just say no more fossil fuels at all. Fracking and Tar Sand Oil are greener than coal for example, plus they have the significant benefit for political reasons of meaning Middle Eastern oil isn't needed as much. That's a separate but also very important point. The less income the Saudi Arabian government gets the better! (Within reason)


Tar sands are used for liquid fuel in cars and trucks and dirtier than conventional fuel. Not to mention all the fresh water and forest destruction caused by using that stuff.



> It's better than doing nothing, and it was pretty much as good as could be realistically hoped for most experts agree. It's progress. What would be your solution?


It is basically doing nothing :lol

Making companies pay for their pollution enough to make them change where and how they get their energy and making it illegal to charge customers for it. Restricting how many kids people can have. Increasing the mileage on cars per gallon. That would be a good start.



> That's debatable, as it depends on how much energy green technologies can provide. If something like fusion energy becomes available then it certainly doesn't. It's the far less energy hungry nations that the population is most significantly rising in anyway.


You might be forgetting about other resources like metals, phosphate, fresh water, timber.



> I assume you want alcohol banned as well then yeah, since it impacts judgement the most and creates the most risks to the user and other people?


Yes I want alcohol banned as well as tobacco.



> The impact to judgement for many drugs is negligible anyway, especially when used responsibly.


But there is still a risk so reason enough for keeping a ban.



> Certain sports create comparable or even bigger risks for the participant and for some sports other people as well.


Sports helps save lives via exercise. Drugs do nothing of the sort.



> As I say, you can't say something should be illegal because it has just any level of risk.


Yes I can and I did too. Drugs have no real value at all in society.



> The same goes for hospital admissions from just about anything else recreational. Should they be banned from doing it for the same reason?


No they shouldn't be banned. People die from choking on their food but people like and need to eat.

If drugs were legal think of how many more addicts and services would be used up to cope with the demand of ODs and other medical problems caused by drugs. Why do you think they were banned in the first place?



> I said vacations, not vaccinations. :lol


So. It's what people get up to on their vacations that probably lead to death.



> Lots of people don't have access to cars, horses to ride or ski equipment for example which has no doubt saved lives. So what's your point?


My point is why do you want to create more risk in society than there already is. The way you see things people should have access to anything they want just because other risky things are allowed in society. But why doesn't the government allow access to nuclear bombs just because some people want to blow them up for fun?



> How can you be glad about not experiencing something you clearly know nothing about? Believe me, they are VERY interesting and you would love them. There are plenty good legal psychedelics around btw.


I've had experience with marijuana and some other legal ones like nutmeg and morning glory and I think it would be better off if they were illegal and kept that way to keep them out of the hands of teenagers who want to screw around with drugs. They have no benefit whatsoever other than killing boredom and curiosity. If someone wants altered states of mind there is lucid dreaming and astral projection and meditation and hypnosis and the "runners high".



> Drugs bring pretty much everyone who takes them pleasure, not just 'some'. Why would they take them otherwise? :? How you can say pleasure isn't a benefit is beyond belief!


Pleasure is a selfish benefit which is quickly forgotten. There are no other real benefits from drugs other than a high and a mystical experience which has no use in the real world.



> The latter is pretty much unheard of, and while the former can happen, the risk isn't any higher than issues that can occur due to alcohol or various sports for example.


Why create more risk in society than there already is?



> That's got nothing to do with what you were replying to. You were claiming people have more negative experiences than positive on drugs and I clearly showed you were wrong. Don't try and sweep it under the carpet with a non-sequitur.


But like I said what defines a positive experience? Seeing a wall melt or talking to a mechanical elf brings no benefit to society. Most "benefits" are probably just things they think are "cool".



> The issue with them being illegal is that it's unjustifiable if the law is based on risk since it can be shown many of these drugs are less harmful than many legal things. That's no way to legislate. Also, there is a growing trend for legalisation of cannabis and reform of drug laws so things are changing to be more justifiable.


The law is there to protect people. Perhaps you'd be fine with children taking drugs?



> Drugs being illegal causes great harm due to the millions of lives it destroys due to incarceration. Plus, the war on drugs is a miserable failure than has wasted trillions of dollars and has directly helped fund terrorists to some degree and brutal cartels entirely, who are responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of people.


Which is why drug trafficers need to rounded up and locked away or executed. And drug users need to be educated about the dangers of drugs and why they shouldn't be used.



> I suspect I know why.


Care to explain?



> That's just gross ignorance again. You could say the same thing about going to the movies or going on vacation, which are just as 'selfish'. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing recreation _and _study/charity. To only do the latter would mean a pretty sad limited life. Quite inhuman actually.


There is just something fundamentally wrong with taking drugs. Taking a hit of lsd or a hit of dmt is from what I've read nothing like having a few beers after a hard days work like you seem to think it is :roll

Drugs have nothing to offer other than some pointless pleasure and certainly don't enhance one's life as you claim. From what I've seen drugs detract from one's life or don't add anything.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Doesn't mean **** in the long run for the planet.


You're totally missing the point.



> Tar sands are used for liquid fuel in cars and trucks and dirtier than conventional fuel. Not to mention all the fresh water and forest destruction caused by using that stuff.


Wrong, coal is the worst, by a lot. Proof.



> It is basically doing nothing :lol


When you get millions or billions of people all doing a little it adds up to a lot though. What's your point about this? Are you saying nobody should bother since they can't individually make any difference?



> Making companies pay for their pollution enough to make them change where and how they get their energy and making it illegal to charge customers for it.


Well carbon credits (where they pay to be allowed to pollute) are already in use in some places, and that's set to increase.



> Restricting how many kids people can have.


That's a very difficult one as it's oppressive. In the West the number of children people have is falling anyway.



> Increasing the mileage on cars per gallon. That would be a good start.


Cars increasingly becoming more fuel efficient has been happening for decades.



> You might be forgetting about other resources like metals, phosphate, fresh water, timber.


I have no idea what you are talking about there in relation to what I said.



> Yes I want alcohol banned as well as tobacco.


But not other recreational things which are of similar risk? Only consumables? What about high fat/sugary food? Surely by your thinking they should be banned as well for the risk they present to an individual and the burden they place on society due to related health issues?



> But there is still a risk so reason enough for keeping a ban.


Everything has a degree of risk. Should cars be banned as well then?



> Sports helps save lives via exercise. Drugs do nothing of the sort.


That's like saying cars do nothing of the sort either, (i.e. save lives due to exercise), so should be banned.



> Yes I can and I did too. Drugs have no real value at all in society.


Again such ignorance and naivety. How is something that gives many people some of the best experiences of their lives and in the case of psychedelics open mental doors to wonderful ways of thinking and potential mental health therapy have "no real value"?

Don't be so arrogant to think that because you aren't interested they have no value to anyone else. :roll



> No they shouldn't be banned. People die from choking on their food but people like and need to eat.


Well of course you couldn't ban food, since it's a necessity. I'm talking about recreational things which are of similar or more risk than drugs. How can you say something more risky should be legal? You aren't making any logical sense.



> If drugs were legal think of how many more addicts and services would be used up to cope with the demand of ODs and other medical problems caused by drugs.


Well the places in the world where drugs are decriminalised or legal (some drugs) actually have lower rates of problem drug users, so you fail again to provide a credible argument.



> Why do you think they were banned in the first place?


Ignorant idiotic politicians. Have you ever heard of the prohibition era? Same story, similar political mistakes.



> So. It's what people get up to on their vacations that probably lead to death.


Indeed people often engage in riskier activities when on vacation, so should they be banned?



> My point is why do you want to create more risk in society than there already is. The way you see things people should have access to anything they want just because other risky things are allowed in society.


The fact is it probably wouldn't create more risk, and probably even less overall. It would eliminate all the drug related gang warfare, reduce drug related crime and reduce or remove numerous others risks that are recognised by drugs being illegal.



> But why doesn't the government allow access to nuclear bombs just because some people want to blow them up for fun?


There's no good case for allowing people access to nuclear bombs.



> I've had experience with marijuana and some other legal ones like nutmeg and morning glory and I think it would be better off if they were illegal and kept that way to keep them out of the hands of teenagers who want to screw around with drugs. They have no benefit whatsoever other than killing boredom and curiosity.


I've already told you various benefits they have, but you just blindly ignore these very well established (and frankly obvious) facts.

You keep coming out with these naive statements which simply demonstrates your ignorance of the topic. Drug availability is widespread anyway, and if at least some were legal it could protect people from more dangerous ones. As has been established by studies, new legality of certain drugs which were illegal doesn't make much if any difference to the number of people who choose to use them.



> If someone wants altered states of mind there is lucid dreaming and astral projection and meditation and hypnosis and the "runners high".


That's as laughable as saying if someone wants to go to a party or on vacation they should just imagine it or dream about it instead. :lol



> Pleasure is a selfish benefit which is quickly forgotten.


Any recreational activity you do for pleasure is a 'selfish benefit' and if you quickly forget pleasurable activities then I feel sorry for you.



> There are no other real benefits from drugs other than a high and a mystical experience which has no use in the real world.


Pleasure, entertainment, insight etc that drugs give have as much value in the "real" world as anything else that gives them. Why wouldn't they?



> Why create more risk in society than there already is?


I've already explained why that probably wouldn't be the case above.



> But like I said what defines a positive experience? Seeing a wall melt or talking to a mechanical elf brings no benefit to society. Most "benefits" are probably just things they think are "cool".


I'm starting to doubt your history of actually having positive experiences. :? Why do you keep claiming something is only valid if it has benefit to society? Do you never do anything like watch a movie for example? You doing that has no benefit to society.

You seem blind to the double standards you clearly hold for whatever perverse reason.



> The law is there to protect people. Perhaps you'd be fine with children taking drugs?


Of course not, just like I wouldn't be fine with children driving cars. You're really struggling here.



> Which is why drug trafficers need to rounded up and locked away or executed. And drug users need to be educated about the dangers of drugs and why they shouldn't be used.


Oh yeah because that policy has worked so well. :roll It's simply unbelievable how naive you are about this.

It's part of human nature to want to enter alternated states of conciousness. Saying it should be banned it is like trying to say casual sex should be banned. It's stinks of religious oppression and guilt about doing pleasurable things.



> Care to explain?


Probably because you are content with your naivety and just like to mouth off without rationally thinking about certain topics.



> There is just something fundamentally wrong with taking drugs.


Can you explain why? It's like you have some opposition to enjoyment.



> Taking a hit of lsd or a hit of dmt is from what I've read nothing like having a few beers after a hard days work like you seem to think it is :roll


Hahaha you are cracking me up. :lol Please quote anything where I compare DMT with a few beers. :lol



> Drugs have nothing to offer other than some pointless pleasure and certainly don't enhance one's life as you claim. From what I've seen drugs detract from one's life or don't add anything.


Oh so some pleasure is "pointless"? Just like not all joy is joy, or all fun is fun etc yeah? I've already cited a large scale studie which show that drugs give people positive experiences far more than they give negative ones, so you're just being foolish to say that you, "Mr I once had nutmeg", knows better. :roll

You should be ashamed of the blatant double standards you posit.

We've gone well well of topic now but hey, it's been fun, and i'm sure those in the audience are having a hoot, as you come out with some comedy stuff making my job here so much fun.


----------



## jimity

> You're totally missing the point.


You're missing my point. Doing little things just kicks the can down the road.



> Wrong, coal is the worst, by a lot.


I'm talking about fuel for transport. It's the dirtiest fuel the usa uses.



> When you get millions or billions of people all doing a little it adds up to a lot though. What's your point about this? Are you saying nobody should bother since they can't individually make any difference?


I'm saying it's just kicking the can down the road. Little things here and there just allow the human race to keep on chugging along just a little bit further.



> Cars increasingly becoming more fuel efficient has been happening for decades.


As has the car population which probably cancels out fuel efficiency.



> I have no idea what you are talking about there in relation to what I said.


I'm saying if the human race solves one problem to continue on with infinite growth it'll just hit another hurdle.



> But not other recreational things which are of similar risk? Only consumables? What about high fat/sugary food? Surely by your thinking they should be banned as well for the risk they present to an individual and the burden they place on society due to related health issues?


Junk food should be banned.



> Everything has a degree of risk. Should cars be banned as well then?


Cars have use. To get to work and car manufacturing makes up quite a sizable portion of the economy.



> That's like saying cars do nothing of the sort either, (i.e. save lives due to exercise), so should be banned.


No it's isn't. Cars have a good usage unlike drugs. Cars save lives for example by driving people to hospital (probably from a drug od :lol )



> Again such ignorance and naivety. How is something that gives many people some of the best experiences of their lives and in the case of psychedelics open mental doors to wonderful ways of thinking and potential mental health therapy have "no real value"?


How many people who have come up with radical ideas that have advanced science used drugs to achieve them? Only a small few but most have been while sober.



> Don't be so arrogant to think that because you aren't interested they have no value to anyone else. :roll


There is no real use for other than fun. Go find something else to do, junkie.



> Well of course you couldn't ban food, since it's a necessity. I'm talking about recreational things which are of similar or more risk than drugs. How can you say something more risky should be legal? You aren't making any logical sense.


What makes you think banning drugs has to be based on some kind of logic? If I want them banned because I don't like them then I'll ban them 



> Well the places in the world where drugs are decriminalised or legal (some drugs) actually have lower rates of problem drug users, so you fail again to provide a credible argument.


I wonder why that doesn't translate to alcohol since that is also legal yet has is one of the worst drugs.



> Drug availability is widespread anyway, and if at least some were legal it could protect people from more dangerous ones. As has been established by studies, new legality of certain drugs which were illegal doesn't make much if any difference to the number of people who choose to use them.


Maybe they should stop taking drugs period and that way they'll eliminate the risk altogether.



> Indeed people often engage in riskier activities when on vacation, so should they be banned?


Certain activities are already illegal such as climbing buildings.



> The fact is it probably wouldn't create more risk, and probably even less overall. It would eliminate all the drug related gang warfare, reduce drug related crime and reduce or remove numerous others risks that are recognised by drugs being illegal.


That's why there is the law in place to deal with drug related violence. Drug related crime related to possession/manufacturing of course would be reduced simply because it would be legal!



> There's no good case for allowing people access to nuclear bombs.


Why can't people be allowed to blow up nukes. It could serve as therapy just like lsd 



> I've already told you various benefits they have, but you just blindly ignore these very well established (and frankly obvious) facts.


That's because their benefits drug takers are only interested in.



> That's as laughable as saying if someone wants to go to a party or on vacation they should just imagine it or dream about it instead. :lol


No it isn't. If you want an altered state they offer you one. And drugs taking you on a "trip" aren't even real anyway. It's all just imaginary. So what's the point of going on a trip that's just imaginary :lol



> if you quickly forget pleasurable activities then I feel sorry for you.


Like I really care if you.



> Pleasure, entertainment, insight etc that drugs give have as much value in the "real" world as anything else that gives them. Why wouldn't they?


Oh really. Have drugs been so insightful for you that you hang around on a forum for social anxiety just to discuss topics rather than because you also have sa?



> I'm starting to doubt your history of actually having positive experiences. Why do you keep claiming something is only valid if it has benefit to society? Do you never do anything like watch a movie for example? You doing that has no benefit to society.


My experiences were not negative but what's the appeal other than fun? Stick to watching movies.

Drugs are illegal at the moment and to change those laws is a lot of work so they'd better have much to offer the wider community other than create "insight".



> Of course not, just like I wouldn't be fine with children driving cars. You're really struggling here.


Well why shouldn't a child be allowed to take a substance for fun while you are allowed to?



> Oh yeah because that policy has worked so well. :roll It's simply unbelievable how naive you are about this.


And it's great how legalizing alcohol and tobacco have worked out.



> It's part of human nature to want to enter alternated states of conciousness. Saying it should be banned it is like trying to say casual sex should be banned. It's stinks of religious oppression and guilt about doing pleasurable things.


The government can't ban and enforce everything but they can do so with drugs. And religious oppression being at the heart of drug prohibition is not true. It's your best interests at heart. But you fail to understand that. You're like a child who wants his own way but can't have it.



> Probably because you are content with your naivety and just like to mouth off without rationally thinking about certain topics.


Oh so you expect all people to follow what you think do you otherwise they're embarrassing themselves?



> Can you explain why? It's like you have some opposition to enjoyment.


Drugs are bad because they can do a lot of harm and it's the users who refuse to see that or simply don't care or even think it's good for them (as you do). And like I said there are plenty of other pleasurable activities to do other than take drugs.



> Hahaha you are cracking me up. :lol Please quote anything where I compare DMT with a few beers. :lol


It's your attitude towards drugs that has me concerned. To me your like "Hey duuude.. drugs are gooood maaan.. look how ****ed up I am".



> Oh so some pleasure is "pointless"? Just like not all joy is joy, or all fun is fun etc yeah? I've already cited a large scale studie which show that drugs give people positive experiences far more than they give negative ones, so you're just being foolish to say that you, "Mr I once had nutmeg", knows better.


It's got very little to do with my own personal experience but others. And just because some people have nice experiences doesn't mean all people do (which is your argument).



> You should be ashamed of the blatant double standards you posit.


You should be ashamed for your promotion of drugs.



> We've gone well well of topic now but hey, it's been fun, and i'm sure those in the audience are having a hoot, as you come out with some comedy stuff making my job here so much fun.


I'm just glad this doesn't give you a hard on.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> You're missing my point. Doing little things just kicks the can down the road.


So it's better to leave it until the last possible minute and then to it all at once?



> I'm talking about fuel for transport. It's the dirtiest fuel the usa uses.


So let's welcome in the increasingly new fleets of green freight and public vehicles.



> I'm saying it's just kicking the can down the road. Little things here and there just allow the human race to keep on chugging along just a little bit further.


So you think rather than a gradual reformation of change isn't worth it unless it's a complete change?



> As has the car population which probably cancels out fuel efficiency.


So? Is improving fuel efficiency pointless then? There is already in an increase on bans of cars in many city centres for pollution and congestion reasons, but you can't expect to ban them for outright.



> I'm saying if the human race solves one problem to continue on with infinite growth it'll just hit another hurdle.


If there's one thing our species is pretty good at it's finding solutions to many hurdles.



> Junk food should be banned.


That's a highly extremist opinion, but if you are that kind of person so be it.



> Cars have use. To get to work and car manufacturing makes up quite a sizable portion of the economy.


So as long as something has a physical purpose but a degree of risk that it's OK, but something recreational with low risk should be banned? What about those who drive for recreation? Ban them too?



> No it's isn't. Cars have a good usage unlike drugs. Cars save lives for example by driving people to hospital (probably from a drug od :lol )


Actually the figures for those who die in car accidents and those who die from drug ODs are about the same (~40/million). Considering ~40% if drugs deaths are related to heroin and the much of the rest to cocaine, with almost none or absolutely none to ecstasy or psychedelics for example, that clearly means taking scientifically proven relatively safe drugs like ecstasy and LSD is actually safer than getting in car.

So, your wrong/ignorant again.



> How many people who have come up with radical ideas that have advanced science used drugs to achieve them? Only a small few but most have been while sober.


There are 3 Nobel Laureates who are on record as saying LSD was important in their research, and before it was banned in the US many promising studies on how useful it is for creative and problem solving were being established. People like Steve Jobs says taking LSD was one of the 3 most important things the's ever done in his life.

Psychedelic drugs unarguably promote insight, so it's embarrassing for you to say they don't, especially from someone with no experience in the matter. Why exactly do you think you are qualified to speak about a subject you are so ignorant about? :?

What do you think you are getting from this other than showing everything that's the case?



> There is no real use for other than fun.


Even if fun was the only thing they did, how does that invalidate it? You keep refusing to answer my repeated questions as to why something needs to serve some societal benefit etc to be valid. That's just incredible dishonesty as I know without doubt there are things you must do to enjoy yourself that don't. If you so, then you must lead a very sad life, devoid of many of lives pleasures and what makes it great being human.



> Go find something else to do, junkie.


I'm not addicted to any drugs so I'm not junkie. Again saying such things just further embarrasses your self in from of the audience.



> What makes you think banning drugs has to be based on some kind of logic? If I want them banned because I don't like them then I'll ban them


Oh a nugget of honesty. I'm glad you can admit you are illogical and your argument is based on mindless prejudice rather than intelligence and rationale. :roll



> I wonder why that doesn't translate to alcohol since that is also legal yet has is one of the worst drugs.


The issue was exactly the same under Prohibition.



> Maybe they should stop taking drugs period and that way they'll eliminate the risk altogether.


That's as ill-thought out as saying people should stop having casual sex to eliminate the chance of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.



> Certain activities are already illegal such as climbing buildings.


Are you just going to list random illegal activates for some reason? That's one which has a very high chance of death/harm, so is justified to be illegal. Many drugs aren't so why are they illegal?



> That's why there is the law in place to deal with drug related violence. Drug related crime related to possession/manufacturing of course would be reduced simply because it would be legal!


Indeed, so removing all the trillions of dollars put towards related crime, murder and terrorists funding due to it would stop. It's little current legislation that facilitates this.


----------



## ugh1979

> Why can't people be allowed to blow up nukes. It could serve as therapy just like lsd


You've lost it again. :lol



> That's because their benefits drug takers are only interested in.


So now benefits can only be benefits if they benefit everyone? :lol Wow.











> No it isn't. If you want an altered state they offer you one.


Are you honestly trying to say certain trips can't put you into an altered state of mind now?











> And drugs taking you on a "trip" aren't even real anyway. It's all just imaginary. So what's the point of going on a trip that's just imaginary :lol


Says the man who is a proponent of lucid dreaming and astral projection. Did you forget about your own enjoyment of altered states of conciousness? Or are they off limits since only such things you enjoy should be allowed. :lol



> Like I really care if you.


Fair enough. Still sad for you though. You must leave a pretty miserable life.



> Oh really. Have drugs been so insightful for you that you hang around on a forum for social anxiety just to discuss topics rather than because you also have sa?


I have very little in the way of SA. In fact psychedelic drugs played a part in me overcoming it.  Studies show psychedelic can reduce anxiety for example. I just stick around here to partake in the Science and Religion forums for the entertaining and interesting debates.



> My experiences were not negative but what's the appeal other than fun? Stick to watching movies.


Do you think all things that are fun are equal? :lol Would you prefer to go on a vacation or watch a movie for example? I've already mentioned other appeals as well.



> Drugs are illegal at the moment and to change those laws is a lot of work so they'd better have much to offer the wider community other than create "insight"


To the contrary, there are more recreational drugs that are legal than illegal in many countries. Hundreds and hundreds.

It's ridiculous you go from saying the appeal is just fun inferring it's just insight. You can't even maintain a coherent honest argument here. You should admit you've been routed and are well out of your depth.



> Well why shouldn't a child be allowed to take a substance for fun while you are allowed to?


For the same reason a child shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun or drive a car. Has the penny dropped yet?



> And it's great how legalizing alcohol and tobacco have worked out.


It's arguable that if prohibition still existed society would be in a worse state. (Also, tobacco has never been illegal)



> The government can't ban and enforce everything but they can do so with drugs.


But why just pick on something that brings most people happiness, when there's no justifiable argument for it, since their risk based justification is proven to be unscientific and therefore untenable?



> And religious oppression being at the heart of drug prohibition is not true.


It has certainly played a part. Why do you think it's prohibited in most religions? Coincidence?



> It's your best interests at heart.


I could argue that it's in your best interests to never get in a car since it has the same about of risk of dying as on drugs.



> But you fail to understand that.


No it's you who I have absolutely put through the wringer in this debate to demonstrate to the audience that it's you has little to no understanding and can clearly highlight the fallacies of your ill-thought out, ignorant and naive arguments. 



> You're like a child who wants his own way but can't have it.


To the contrary, you're the one who has admitted you just want them banned because you don't like them. How immature is that?



> Oh so you expect all people to follow what you think do you otherwise they're embarrassing themselves?


Don't compare yourself with everyone. I'm just saying you've exceeded yourself to do so in this thread.



> Drugs are bad because they can do a lot of harm and it's the users who refuse to see that or simply don't care or even think it's good for them (as you do). And like I said there are plenty of other pleasurable activities to do other than take drugs.


Cars can do a lot of harm (statistically comparable as I explained above).

You just refuse to accept any expert knowledge on the subject (as usual) and maintain your arrogant view that because you don't like them nobody else should do them. It's very selfish and cringeworthy conservative.



> It's your attitude towards drugs that has me concerned. To me your like "Hey duuude.. drugs are gooood maaan.. look how ****ed up I am".


If you are going to paraphrase me at least don't make bare faced lies. First of all I said they are good when used responsibly, like anything else, and I never once said I was ****ed up. To the contrary I said they have helped me.

Shame on you for lying.



> It's got very little to do with my own personal experience but others. And just because some people have nice experiences doesn't mean all people do (which is your argument).


More demonstrable lies. Do you just not read or something? Go pack and look at the post I cited the study for positive vs negative experiences with drugs and you will learn that you are wrong again.



> You should be ashamed for your promotion of drugs.


No I shouldn't, as i've argued a solid case for their responsible use in a society that has a demand for them that no prohibition will quell. You should be ashamed of the ignorance and dishonesty you keep displaying in their thread, along with your core argument of, "I don't like them so nobody else should." That's just pathetic.


----------



## Kamikaze

The spiritual world is actually more real than the physical world. We as humans just can't see it because we are in a different dimension, but sometimes people can get a glimpse of spirits or paranormal phenomena. I had a brief encounter with a spirit/entity before and it's scary and very real.

The reason Ouija boards can bring this kind of thing about is because "playing" with a Ouija board is basically inviting spirits into your realm, and if you invite them in you are giving them permission to harass you.


----------



## ugh1979

Kamikaze said:


> The spiritual world is actually more real than the physical world. We as humans just can't see it because we are in a different dimension, but sometimes people can get a glimpse of spirits or paranormal phenomena. I had a brief encounter with a spirit/entity before and it's scary and very real.
> 
> The reason Ouija boards can bring this kind of thing about is because "playing" with a Ouija board is basically inviting spirits into your realm, and if you invite them in you are giving them permission to harass you.


Wrong, for reasons discussed many times in this thread.

It'a actually quite sad you think your chosen fantasy world is more real than the physical world. That requires face faced rejection of hard evidence.


----------



## Kamikaze

ugh1979 said:


> Wrong, for reasons discussed many times in this thread.
> 
> It'a actually quite sad you think your chosen fantasy world is more real than the physical world. That requires face faced rejection of hard evidence.


Why is it so important for you to be right all the time? I expressed _my opinions_ on what the OP was asking about. If you don't agree with me fine but don't tell me I'm wrong like you have all the knowledge of the universe. You are a human being and your knowledge is severely finite. Many people have had experiences that can't be explained. Sorry but it's a FACT.


----------



## ugh1979

Kamikaze said:


> Why is it so important for you to be right all the time? I expressed _my opinions_ on what the OP was asking about.


This is a discussion forum, so when someone says something I disagree with I will say so. I hope you don't think your opinions are off limits for criticism do you?



> If you don't agree with me fine but don't tell me I'm wrong like you have all the knowledge of the universe. You are a human being and your knowledge is severely finite.


I don't need to have all the knowledge of the universe to be educated enough to say with high confidence that you are wrong, especially on a statement as absurd as you made stating that the 'spiritual world', (which there is no credible evidence for), is more real that than the physical world that we all occupy and can establish it's reality without doubt.



> Many people have had experiences that can't be explained. Sorry but it's a FACT.


Sorry but it's a FACT that argument is known as an appeal to ignorance.

I'll happily keep highlighting the cognitive fallacies people make and so I should.


----------



## Kamikaze

ugh1979 said:


> This is a discussion forum, so when someone says something I disagree with I will say so. I hope you don't think your opinions are off limits for criticism do you?
> 
> I don't need to have all the knowledge of the universe to be educated enough to say with high confidence that you are wrong, especially on a statement as absurd as you made stating that the 'spiritual world', (which there is no credible evidence for), is more real that than the physical world that we all occupy and can establish it's reality without doubt.
> 
> Sorry but it's a FACT that argument is known as an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> I'll happily keep highlighting the cognitive fallacies people make and so I should.


Okay enlightened one.


----------



## jimity

> So it's better to leave it until the last possible minute and then to it all at once?


You seem to be forgetting about tipping points in the climate. Doing little things here and there over the next 50 - 100 years is too little too late and what little is being done now is not good enough.



> So let's welcome in the increasingly new fleets of green freight and public vehicles.


The only way to do that is to stop buying hydrocarbon fuel to make the companies sit up and listen.



> So you think rather than a gradual reformation of change isn't worth it unless it's a complete change?


It depends how fast it's done. If it's going to take 10 years then perhaps it's worth it. But if it's going to be 50 - 100 years to half the fossil fuel usage then we've probably already gone past tipping points. Is it worth it to stop smoking if your already terminally ill?



> So? Is improving fuel efficiency pointless then? There is already in an increase on bans of cars in many city centres for pollution and congestion reasons, but you can't expect to ban them for outright.


Not entirely pointless but small increases in efficiency is just kicking the can down the road if the car population keeps growing.



> If there's one thing our species is pretty good at it's finding solutions to many hurdles.


Planned obsolescence was a good solution for increasing demand. Dumping toxic waste in the ocean was great too. Using depleted uranium as ammunition was putting it to use. So yes we're also pretty good at solving a few hurdles.



> So, your wrong/ignorant again.


If one life can be saved then that is worth it.



> So as long as something has a physical purpose but a degree of risk that it's OK, but something recreational with low risk should be banned? What about those who drive for recreation? Ban them too?


Road rules are there for a reason. People still break road rules as they do drugs laws, don't they ugh1979  Maybe you could go even further and ask me if I think distractions and fatigue should be banned since they often lead to accidents.



> There are 3 Nobel Laureates who are on record as saying LSD was important in their research, and before it was banned in the US many promising studies on how useful it is for creative and problem solving were being established. People like Steve Jobs says taking LSD was one of the 3 most important things the's ever done in his life.


So it's 4 people out of how many thousands now?



> Psychedelic drugs unarguably promote insight, so it's embarrassing for you to say they don't, especially from someone with no experience in the matter. Why exactly do you think you are qualified to speak about a subject you are so ignorant about? :?


I know they create insightful thinking but I didn't mention it as perhaps most people just group it as another kind of fun thing for them. Hey you want insight? Go meditate or open up a book. Or are you just lazy?

And why can't I speak? You have no right to tell me to voice my opinion on drugs if I have no real experience with drugs. I'll shout my opinion all I want.



> Even if fun was the only thing they did, how does that invalidate it? You keep refusing to answer my repeated questions as to why something needs to serve some societal benefit etc to be valid. That's just incredible dishonesty as I know without doubt there are things you must do to enjoy yourself that don't. If you so, then you must lead a very sad life, devoid of many of lives pleasures and what makes it great being human.


Risks are unacceptable. You just want drugs legal because you like them. If you weren't into drugs I wonder if you'd even care about them being legalized or illegal.



> Oh a nugget of honesty. I'm glad you can admit you are illogical and your argument is based on mindless prejudice rather than intelligence and rationale. :roll


And you just want drugs around because you like them. Has nothing to do with intelligent and rationale. You just want to try to win and get your own way.



> The issue was exactly the same under Prohibition.


So having alcohol legal has made things so much better has it? Reduction of deaths and alcohol related disease?



> That's as ill-thought out as saying people should stop having casual sex to eliminate the chance of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.


Why do you keep using the argument of why is everything else that carries risk legal but drugs are illegal? A lot of laws would be impractical if everything that carried risk was banned.



> Are you just going to list random illegal activates for some reason? That's one which has a very high chance of death/harm, so is justified to be illegal. Many drugs aren't so why are they illegal?


I'm pointing out that things are made illegal if there are certain risks carried with them. The person who wants to climb a building for fun could use similar arguments you use. Why is other dangerous activities like stunt driving or swimming with sharks allowed while his activity isn't? It's his life and should be allowed take any risks he want.

And drugs are illegal because there is the risk of death or death to others or serious medical complications otherwise they would probably be legal since the government wouldn't see any reason for banning them. Why do you think many drugs are prescription only. Drugs like the benzos or oxycontin for example? They are for trying to protect people.


----------



## jimity

> You've lost it again. :lol


You want a world filled with drugs thinking no harm will result from it. I wouldn't have been surprised if you thought nukes should be legal as long as people are responsible with them and if they can help people psychologically.



> So now benefits can only be benefits if they benefit everyone?


No you just think they're benefits but probably are illusory like how you think you're so wise and understand all the riddles of the universe while tripping but fail to retain those insights when you've come down.



> Are you honestly trying to say certain trips can't put you into an altered state of mind now?


Just how ignorant do you think I am about the effects of drugs :lol You just like grasping at straws to try to dominate a debate don't you? I'm saying if you want an altered state there are some that don't require drugs and you just go off laughing and saying that's just like imagining going somewhere and thinking it's the same as going there. They might not be the same but they nevertheless are a different experience than ordinary waking experience.



> Says the man who is a proponent of lucid dreaming and astral projection. Did you forget about your own enjoyment of altered states of conciousness? Or are they off limits since only such things you enjoy should be allowed. :lol


Sorry but the last time I checked lucid dreaming doesn't carry the sort of risks drug use does. But you just ignore that don't you? And you think your arguments are based on intelligence and rationale when clearly many are just used to try to win and dominate an argument :lol



> Fair enough. Still sad for you though. You must leave a pretty miserable life.


So you think having wonderful experiences on drugs would somehow be oh so great and be so life enhancing and that anyone who doesn't is missing out on a big part of life. Maybe I should be a bong head or start shooting up some drugs so I'll get such a great rush. You remind me of most outgoing folk who think if you're not getting wasted or bedding different women every weekend you're a loser. And I've had good times on drugs and other activities but I just don't see them with so much importance as you do.



> I have very little in the way of SA. In fact psychedelic drugs played a part in me overcoming it.  Studies show psychedelic can reduce anxiety for example. I just stick around here to partake in the Science and Religion forums for the entertaining and interesting debates.


Is that dying anxiety?

I wonder if you ever enter any debate that you know you'd lose?



> Do you think all things that are fun are equal? :lol Would you prefer to go on a vacation or watch a movie for example? I've already mentioned other appeals as well.


If drugs were legal and had no real risk then I'd be fine about people using them.



> To the contrary, there are more recreational drugs that are legal than illegal in many countries. Hundreds and hundreds.


I know there are but governments are passing laws to get them all banned. Quick you better stockpile before it happens.



> It's ridiculous you go from saying the appeal is just fun inferring it's just insight. You can't even maintain a coherent honest argument here. You should admit you've been routed and are well out of your depth.


I've already explained that many people probably see their insights as just some kind of fun while some others take it more seriously. And why should I give in to you?



> For the same reason a child shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun or drive a car. Has the penny dropped yet?


Yet you don't explain why a 10 or 12 year old can't be allowed to take drugs? You think being an adult somehow makes a person responsible with using drugs/cars/guns :lol and so that gives them a right to use something. Or is that because drugs can alter a child's brain? Sorry but drugs can alter an adults brain as well and I certainly wouldn't want to be on a plane being flown by someone who had used lsd many times before. And children are given guns to use and drive cars under guidance from parents which shows they are perfectly capable of using these things responsibly.



> It's arguable that if prohibition still existed society would be in a worse state. (Also, tobacco has never been illegal)


It depends on how well enforced the laws were and this also shows that people lack respect for the law and are often irresponsible.



> But why just pick on something that brings most people happiness, when there's no justifiable argument for it, since their risk based justification is proven to be unscientific and therefore untenable?


If you want to live in a country why don't you just follow the laws instead of trying to argue them to change? Go start your own country. All you hippies can go live over there and trip out as much as you like.

And happiness in society is more about how much a person feels like they contribute to the community and how much of a sense of belonging they feel, not drugs, despite what temporary happiness euphoria they bring. So maybe you should get more involved with community activities. That way you'll feel much more fulfilled and satisfied with life and wont resort to taking drugs to learn things you already knew but just weren't aware of.



> It has certainly played a part. Why do you think it's prohibited in most religions? Coincidence?


Alcohol and tobacco are legal where you live and many drugs that are illegal now were legal in the past. You think of the reasons the government decides to ban something and you tell me what those are and don't give me some conspiracy theory.



> I could argue that it's in your best interests to never get in a car since it has the same about of risk of dying as on drugs.


You keep making the same argument but is impractical in reality to ban all things that carry risk. The country is set up for cars and would require perhaps hundreds of trillions of dollars to go back to living in villages where everyone walks to where they want to go.



> No it's you who I have absolutely put through the wringer in this debate to demonstrate to the audience that it's you has little to no understanding and can clearly highlight the fallacies of your ill-thought out, ignorant and naive arguments.


Does that mean you think you've won the argument? Even if I let you win you still haven't achieved anything in terms of getting your wishes (to be able to by smack, ice, pcp, 25i nbome and everything else in between in the supermarket or pharmacy).



> To the contrary, you're the one who has admitted you just want them banned because you don't like them. How immature is that?


And you want them legal because they what, help people? or just to make it even easier for you to get things you might want to try but can't find a source to get it from.



> Don't compare yourself with everyone. I'm just saying you've exceeded yourself to do so in this thread.


Nice psychological tactic to give up. Keep trying.



> Cars can do a lot of harm (statistically comparable as I explained above).
> 
> You just refuse to accept any expert knowledge on the subject (as usual) and maintain your arrogant view that because you don't like them nobody else should do them. It's very selfish and cringeworthy conservative.


Which shows why drugs should be kept illegal. If people can't be safe with cars what makes you think they'll be any better with drugs :lol Many people find themselves addicted to substances they never intended to get addicted to or find themselves ODing because they couldn't be stuffed measuring a dose and just eyeballed it are two examples.



> If you are going to paraphrase me at least don't make bare faced lies. First of all I said they are good when used responsibly, like anything else, and I never once said I was ****ed up. To the contrary I said they have helped me.


Well you're a minority I bet. You want drugs legal and expect people are going to be responsible with them. Don't be so naive. Why do you think many drugs are banned for? Not to deny you happiness that's for sure.



> Shame on you for lying


Now you're hurting my feelings... :lol



> More demonstrable lies. Do you just not read or something? Go pack and look at the post I cited the study for positive vs negative experiences with drugs and you will learn that you are wrong again.


Many people who reported their experience might have forgotton about their bad ones or minimized them. And with drugs legal more people are willing to try them or gain access to them more easily. When cocaine and heroin were legal addicts were mostly middle aged women I believe.



> No I shouldn't, as i've argued a solid case for their responsible use in a society that has a demand for them that no prohibition will quell. You should be ashamed of the ignorance and dishonesty you keep displaying in their thread, along with your core argument of, "I don't like them so nobody else should." That's just pathetic.


That's not my core argument. If they were much safer then I'd be more ok with them. It's the problems they can cause like health costs and health problems and throwing sickies to recover ect that I don't like about them. But do you believe that if drugs were legal that people would be responsible with them? I don't and you're being naive to think so. Some people would be but drugs impair judgement and so can easily lead to irresponsibility in otherwise responsible and mature people.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> You seem to be forgetting about tipping points in the climate. Doing little things here and there over the next 50 - 100 years is too little too late and what little is being done now is not good enough.


Who said anything about _only_ those people doing anything? :? Much bigger efforts at industry and governmental level are obvious concurrent.



> The only way to do that is to stop buying hydrocarbon fuel to make the companies sit up and listen.


It's naive to think that's a potential overnight change. It requires lots of new infrastructure and investment first.



> It depends how fast it's done. If it's going to take 10 years then perhaps it's worth it. But if it's going to be 50 - 100 years to half the fossil fuel usage then we've probably already gone past tipping points. Is it worth it to stop smoking if your already terminally ill?


You'd need to know that these time-scales are valid before making such an argument, but you can't.



> Not entirely pointless but small increases in efficiency is just kicking the can down the road if the car population keeps growing.


So ban new cars?



> Planned obsolescence was a good solution for increasing demand. Dumping toxic waste in the ocean was great too. Using depleted uranium as ammunition was putting it to use. So yes we're also pretty good at solving a few hurdles.


What have those few cherry picked solutions that you don't care for have to do with our species aptitude for finding solutions to problems? Do you think a solution is only valid if you personally agree with it?



> If one life can be saved then that is worth it.


That's as foolish as saying if one person dies when on vacation all vacations should be banned. :roll. You really struggle with critical thinking. You've consistently demonstrated that across multiple threads. I appreciate not everyone is very good at it though and have issues.



> Road rules are there for a reason. People still break road rules as they do drugs laws, don't they ugh1979


You're dodging the question. I wasn't talking about breaking driving laws. I'm talking about all the injuries and suffering from legal driving. Surely you should see that there should be rules for drugs just like driving which allows them to do it but not to an extent which endangers others?



> Maybe you could go even further and ask me if I think distractions and fatigue should be banned since they often lead to accidents.


Yes the futility of your argument seems to suggest you should think that.



> So it's 4 people out of how many thousands now?


4 I've mentioned, but of course in your ignorance you aren't aware of the many thousands that use psychedelics drugs for creative/positive benefits. See here for example. I have many many more citations I could source for you but I don't think you are willing to learn what you don't know on the subject which is very sad.



> I know they create insightful thinking but I didn't mention it as perhaps most people just group it as another kind of fun thing for them.


You can't even keep your argument consistent as you've been arguing they have no value. Maybe insight has no value to you though?



> Hey you want insight? Go meditate or open up a book. Or are you just lazy?


Again that's as ignorant and inane as saying why go on vacation for when you can just read about it for example? Just thinking about something isn't he same as experiences it you know. 



> And why can't I speak? You have no right to tell me to voice my opinion on drugs if I have no real experience with drugs. I'll shout my opinion all I want.


For the same reason you shouldn't think you could take over from a surgeon in an operation due to your lack of knowledge and experience.

It's laughable and often typical that you think you know about things everyone in the audience can clearly see you are highly ignorant of.

Have fun deluding yourself you know what you are talking about though, as it gives much of the audience a great laugh. :lol

"Dr Nutmeg" etc



> Risks are unacceptable. You just want drugs legal because you like them. If you weren't into drugs I wonder if you'd even care about them being legalized or illegal.


I don't want all drugs legal. There is a rational based system of risk for all recreation activities which should assessed and legislation passed accordingly when considering all the evidence. Unlike you it seems I'm not selfish enough to just want to ban things I don't like but others do. 



> And you just want drugs around because you like them. Has nothing to do with intelligent and rationale. You just want to try to win and get your own way.


See reply above.



> So having alcohol legal has made things so much better has it? Reduction of deaths and alcohol related disease?


Alcohol is useful tool for social lubrication and pleasure. As I keep trying to educate you on but you are seemingly incapable of absorbing, legislation should be based on best attempts to use informed data on risk/benefit assessment rather than prejudiced emotions and regressive/conservative attitudes.



> Why do you keep using the argument of why is everything else that carries risk legal but drugs are illegal? A lot of laws would be impractical if everything that carried risk was banned.


Yet, still the penny doesn't drop as to why many drugs should be legal when riskier things aren't. :lol



> I'm pointing out that things are made illegal if there are certain risks carried with them. The person who wants to climb a building for fun could use similar arguments you use. Why is other dangerous activities like stunt driving or swimming with sharks allowed while his activity isn't?


You seem to be about ten steps behind me in thinking about the issues at play here. Of course things should be illegal based on their proportional risk. That's exactly why many drugs should be legal. I've been trying to teach you that for the last few pages. :lol



> It's his life and should be allowed take any risks he want.


You're entire argument contradicts that. So far it's been clear you are anti-civil liberties in certain respects and support a nanny state.



> And drugs are illegal because there is the risk of death or death to others or serious medical complications otherwise they would probably be legal since the government wouldn't see any reason for banning them.


As I've already proven various times with cited research on the subject but you are't able to comprehend from some reason the risk of death to others or serious medical complications are far lower than many things which are legal, so you're wrong again.

I'm not sure you are even reading my arguments, or they are going over your head? :?



> Why do you think many drugs are prescription only. Drugs like the benzos or oxycontin for example? They are for trying to protect people.


Hence why the drug reformation laws should have legislation to best assist people from falling into the trap of addiction from such types of drugs. Nobody is saying powerful drugs should be sold to anyone and everyone without question, education or control.


----------



## jimity

> So ban new cars?


No but laws could make electric cars the only option.



> What have those few cherry picked solutions that you don't care for have to do with our species aptitude for finding solutions to problems? Do you think a solution is only valid if you personally agree with it?


Does cherry picking make my argument any less valid? And anytime someone does point out past problems you think they're argument is invalid because it's "cherry picking". And what I think about them personally is irrelevant so why bring if I care about them for.

Sounds like you're saying the human species has a great track record when it comes to solving environmental problems.



> That's as foolish as saying if one person dies when on vacation all vacations should be banned. :roll.


Society can tolerate deaths caused by certain activities but won't stand for and allow drugs to be legalized.



> Surely you should see that there should be rules for drugs just like driving which allows them to do it but not to an extent which endangers others?


The laws would concern using them while driving and working and age.



> Yes the futility of your argument seems to suggest you should think that.


Should I bring up the argument you make about cars killing more people than drugs as a valid argument for allowing drugs in society?



> 4 I've mentioned, but of course in your ignorance you aren't aware of the many thousands that use psychedelics drugs for creative/positive benefits. See here for example. I have many many more citations I could source for you but I don't think you are willing to learn what you don't know on the subject which is very sad.


So you support taking illegal drugs while working. smh.



> You can't even keep your argument consistent as you've been arguing they have no value. Maybe insight has no value to you though?


If I want insight I think about a problem not take some drug.



> Again that's as ignorant and inane as saying why go on vacation for when you can just read about it for example? Just thinking about something isn't he same as experiences it you know.


Hey thanks for your glaring insight.



> For the same reason you shouldn't think you could take over from a surgeon in an operation due to your lack of knowledge and experience.


comparing apples with oranges



> It's laughable and often typical that you think you know about things everyone in the audience can clearly see you are highly ignorant of.


It doesn't take much knowledge to know drugs pose quite a risk. I know drugs can be fun and so what exactly are you saying I'm ignorant of again?



> Have fun deluding yourself you know what you are talking about though, as it gives much of the audience a great laugh. :lol


You show me one other person who is laughing.



> "Dr Nutmeg" etc


Oh ok only your experience has any validity does it? And nutmeg is a dangerous substance when used at recreational doses such as liver damage.



> I don't want all drugs legal. There is a rational based system of risk for all recreation activities which should assessed and legislation passed accordingly when considering all the evidence. Unlike you it seems I'm not selfish enough to just want to ban things I don't like but others do.


So if something you enjoyed like lsd was far more dangerous to most people's health you'd be perfectly ok with having it being kept illegal would you.



> Alcohol is useful tool for social lubrication and pleasure. As I keep trying to educate you on but you are seemingly incapable of absorbing, legislation should be based on best attempts to use informed data on risk/benefit assessment rather than prejudiced emotions and regressive/conservative attitudes.


And why should it be based on risk/benefit?

And I'm under no obligation to agree with you but you don't like that well too bad.



> Yet, still the penny doesn't drop as to why many drugs should be legal when riskier things aren't. :lol


Because they are not based on a risk/benefit analysis. How many times do I have to explain it to you????



> You seem to be about ten steps behind me in thinking about the issues at play here. Of course things should be illegal based on their proportional risk. That's exactly why many drugs should be legal. I've been trying to teach you that for the last few pages. :lol


if you start legalizing drugs then people will push for more to become legal so it's better to keep them all banned and that way no one will feel they are not listened to or targeted.



> You're entire argument contradicts that. So far it's been clear you are anti-civil liberties in certain respects and support a nanny state.


I'm not in support of that I'm just making a point. If you legalize one thing then someone can argue and demand you make their past time legal too no matter the risk to themselves.



> As I've already proven various times with cited research on the subject but you are't able to comprehend from some reason the risk of death to others or serious medical complications are far lower than many things which are legal, so you're wrong again.


Yes I get it but why do you insist on allowing more dangers into the community?



> Hence why the drug reformation laws should have legislation to best assist people from falling into the trap of addiction from such types of drugs. Nobody is saying powerful drugs should be sold to anyone and everyone without question, education or control.


But are you ok with people illegally selling benzos and powerful painkillers over the internet or allowing all these new synthetic drugs to be legal which are untested and so there is no data to say whether they are safe or not.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> You want a world filled with drugs thinking no harm will result from it.


Much of the world is already filled with drugs. They are an inherent part of our societies, and always have been. You've blatantly lying to claim I say no harm can come from certain activities. I'd stated from the very beginning there is risk in all activities. At least try and be and contextually honest, even if you have incapable of intellectual honesty.



> I wouldn't have been surprised if you thought nukes should be legal as long as people are responsible with them and if they can help people psychologically.


You won't have any realistic success trying to make a case for that being valid.



> No you just think they're benefits but probably are illusory like how you think you're so wise and understand all the riddles of the universe while tripping but fail to retain those insights when you've come down.


You're just dishonesty making up lies now as I destroy your weak attempts at arguments.

It's clear you are too inexperienced/naive to even know what such insight is like. You're like a blind man trying to dictate to a sighted man what the experience of vision is. :lol



> Just how ignorant do you think I am about the effects of drugs :lol


You've already demonstrated that you are very ignorant.



> You just like grasping at straws to try to dominate a debate don't you?


I don't need to grasp at straws, I dominate this debate, like all debates we have. It's like speaking to a child since you are so poorly educated on the matter. You probably are a child for all I know.



> I'm saying if you want an altered state there are some that don't require drugs and you just go off laughing and saying that's just like imagining going somewhere and thinking it's the same as going there. They might not be the same but they nevertheless are a different experience than ordinary waking experience.


Oh well done you have changed your mind again and admitted that it's not the same. That's the third instance of you forgetting what you've already said and contradicting yourself. I've said many times that other alternative states of conciousness are accessible via other means. You probably learned that from me in another thread over the years. :lol



> Sorry but the last time I checked lucid dreaming doesn't carry the sort of risks drug use does. But you just ignore that don't you?


To the contrary, you are well aware I enjoy lucid dreaming. They are akin to certain drug dissociate drug experiences, but often not as good. The minuscule risk involved for such a better experience via certain drugs is what you fail to accept as valid. You seem very cowardly in that even a tiny rare risk prevents you from living life more fully.



> And you think your arguments are based on intelligence and rationale when clearly many are just used to try to win and dominate an argument :lol


Does that mean you think arguments can be won with idiocy and irrationality?



> So you think having wonderful experiences on drugs would somehow be oh so great and be so life enhancing and that anyone who doesn't is missing out on a big part of life. Maybe I should be a bong head or start shooting up some drugs so I'll get such a great rush. You remind me of most outgoing folk who think if you're not getting wasted or bedding different women every weekend you're a loser. And I've had good times on drugs and other activities but I just don't see them with so much importance as you do.


Rejecting such experiences leads to a less varied experienced more empty life. It's like someone who lives their whole life in a tiny village in Alaska and doesn't live much of a life.

There's a time and a place for many activities, and your close mindedness to such experiences is sad IMO, especially since you don't know enough about the subjects and many drugs in order to make a valid decision on if you should so them. It's like never learning about other countries and just thinking they are all dangerous and worthless while you live in a hut in the desert. 



> Is that dying anxiety?


It can treat various issues of anxiety.



> I wonder if you ever enter any debate that you know you'd lose?


Of course not, as i'm not stupid. :lol I do something called thinking then speaking/typing rather than speaking/typing then thinking.



> If drugs were legal and had no real risk then I'd be fine about people using them.


Can you quantify what 'no real risk' means, since everything has a level of risk.



> I know there are but governments are passing laws to get them all banned. Quick you better stockpile before it happens.


Of course there are few backwards governments who ignore the advise of professionals or do it for inane religious reasons.



> I've already explained that many people probably see their insights as just some kind of fun while some others take it more seriously.


Insight is often an enjoyable experience. I'm not how sure you come to the conclusion that it's only fun and not actually insight though. :?



> And why should I give in to you?


So you can stop embarrassing yourself and earn some respect for knowing when you have been beaten?



> Yet you don't explain why a 10 or 12 year old can't be allowed to take drugs? You think being an adult somehow makes a person responsible with using drugs/cars/guns :lol and so that gives them a right to use something.


I didn't say being an adult automatically makes someone capable and responsible enough to engage in activities which have risk, so stop lying again please. If you don't understand how personal responsibility is applied to humans of certain ages in our society that's just more ignorance.



> Or is that because drugs can alter a child's brain?


Abuse of various things can alter a child's brain in a way which may not be desirable. It's an area we don't know enough about yet so i'm happy to say it's worth keeping such things to adults for the time being.



> Sorry but drugs can alter an adults brain as well and I certainly wouldn't want to be on a plane being flown by someone who had used lsd many times before.


You won't find any relevant scientific evidence which backs up that ignorant claim.



> And children are given guns to use and drive cars under guidance from parents which shows they are perfectly capable of using these things responsibly.


That just backs up my argument about responsible use. A child is of near adult age then there are many activities that can be suitable for them to engage in under supervision of an experienced adult.



> It depends on how well enforced the laws were and this also shows that people lack respect for the law and are often irresponsible.


It's as irresponsible as it is naive to think such laws are effectively enforceable.



> If you want to live in a country why don't you just follow the laws instead of trying to argue them to change? Go start your own country. All you hippies can go live over there and trip out as much as you like.


It's very sad you think injustice should be accepted. I can certainly assume you are a religious conservative white male! Clearly oblivious to the rights and desires of other people in your society.


----------



## ugh1979

> And happiness in society is more about how much a person feels like they contribute to the community and how much of a sense of belonging they feel


Nonsense. Yet more ignorance if you think that applies to everyone.



> ...not drugs, despite what temporary happiness euphoria they bring.


Oh so you have u-turned and now say they do bring happiness, albeit temporary? Not very consistent are you?

Also, to the contrary happy memories, which can of course be induced by drugs, can bring permanent happiness, so you're wrong again.



> So maybe you should get more involved with community activities. That way you'll feel much more fulfilled and satisfied with life and wont resort to taking drugs to learn things you already knew but just weren't aware of.


I'm already involved in community activities and feel very satisfied and fulfilled with life since it's full of pleasurable things. It sounds like yours isn't though which is sad.

Do you think learning things I somehow already knew but wasn't aware of is a bad thing? Are you trying to claim we already know everything but just need to learn it now? You hare some boy! :lol



> Alcohol and tobacco are legal where you live and many drugs that are illegal now were legal in the past. You think of the reasons the government decides to ban something and you tell me what those are and don't give me some conspiracy theory.


Wow that's rich you telling my not to cite a conspiracy theory. :lol

My government has banned many drugs due to ignorance since they sacking of the professional body on the subject they used to consult since they didn't like what they suggested and keep pandering to the ignorant irrational tabloid press since they are corrupt greedy politicians.



> You keep making the same argument but is impractical in reality to ban all things that carry risk. The country is set up for cars and would require perhaps hundreds of trillions of dollars to go back to living in villages where everyone walks to where they want to go.


So as long as there is in vestment in risky activities then they should be legal?

tbh it sounds like my point is going over your head.



> Does that mean you think you've won the argument?


That much is undoubtedly obvious the majority the audience.



> Even if I let you win you still haven't achieved anything in terms of getting your wishes (to be able to by smack, ice, pcp, 25i nbome and everything else in between in the supermarket or pharmacy).


So what?



> And you want them legal because they what, help people?


I want certain drugs to be legal since it's unjustifiable that they aren't when they have been proven to be less risky than many other recreational activities, along with all the benefits they can bring, such as pleasure and helpful therapy. (Of licensing and widespread educational programmes of guidance and responsible use would be required.)



> or just to make it even easier for you to get things you might want to try but can't find a source to get it from.


Many drugs couldn't be much easier to get already, so that's irrelevant.



> Nice psychological tactic to give up. Keep trying.


That's doesn't make sense in response to what I said. I think you are getting confused again.



> Which shows why drugs should be kept illegal. If people can't be safe with cars what makes you think they'll be any better with drugs :lol Many people find themselves addicted to substances they never intended to get addicted to or find themselves ODing because they couldn't be stuffed measuring a dose and just eyeballed it are two examples.


So just like with car licences, people who show they shouldn't have a licence due to infractions and irresponsibility shouldn't. It's quite simple really.



> Well you're a minority I bet. You want drugs legal and expect people are going to be responsible with them. Don't be so naive.


Alcohol is legal and the vast majority of people are responsible with it, (as with cannabis where that is legal), so to the contrary, just look at real world data on drug use and you should see that you are wrong, so it's you who is naive.



> Why do you think many drugs are banned for?


Political ignorance and lobbying by the legal drug corporations that don't want other products on the market. (i.e. alcohol corporations)



> Not to deny you happiness that's for sure.


Well done on realising after me educating you that that drugs do bring happiness. 



> Now you're hurting my feelings... :lol


I'll take that response as an admission of guilt. 



> Many people who reported their experience might have forgotton about their bad ones or minimized them.


That goes against normal human psychology which tends to prioritise negative/dangerous experiences over positive ones, so you're wrong.



> And with drugs legal more people are willing to try them or gain access to them more easily.


Not according to data from where various drugs are legal, so please stop lying.



> When cocaine and heroin were legal addicts were mostly middle aged women I believe.


So what?



> That's not my core argument.


It is at least clearly one of you main arguments.



> If they were much safer then I'd be more ok with them.


You are referring to a huge group of drugs all with different risk ratios. I'm not sure you even understand that. Not all drugs are the same you know. They range from the significantly safe, such as mushrooms and LSD, to the notably dangerous, such as heroin and alcohol.

How safe do you seem safe enough? Can you give me a fatality ratio you deem acceptable?



> It's the problems they can cause like health costs and health problems and throwing sickies to recover ect that I don't like about them.


That's only via irresponsible use. (Or potentially dodgy substances, which legalisation would remove)

I don't like that either, hence why they should be heavily taxed to accommodate health services for they few that aren't responsible (who i'd also have their licence to buy legal drugs revoked), and if someone can't hold down a job because of such issues that's their problem. Millions of people manage just fine.



> But do you believe that if drugs were legal that people would be responsible with them? I don't and you're being naive to think so. Some people would be but drugs impair judgement and so can easily lead to irresponsibility in otherwise responsible and mature people.


Millions of people are already being responsible with them, hence why issues are so rare, especially for the safer ones, so it's not me being naive, it's you being ignorant of something that is already happening and the results are established. It's arguable that drugs that are made legal can be increasingly taken responsibility by even more people since public information sources can be be more widespread.

The current relative widespread lack of education on safe drug use is a tragedy. Thankfully it is improving with a more neutral message sometimes being spread and it being seen as valid common health guidance rather than some 'evil'.

The bottom line is that taking drugs if one chooses is a human right and natural behaviour, and it's immoral to try and make such experiences prohibited when they have such low or no risk of hurting the user or public.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> No but laws could make electric cars the only option.


Only allowing electric cars is irrelevant to this debate.



> Does cherry picking make my argument any less valid? And anytime someone does point out past problems you think they're argument is invalid because it's "cherry picking".


Because it's intellectually dishonest to ignore the masses of data that is contrary to your cherry picked examples in an attempt to make an argument.

It's shocking you don't know that. (You often do it. You frequently express self-selection bias on many topics)



> And what I think about them personally is irrelevant so why bring if I care about them for.


It's your personal reasons for wanting them banned that are the issues I'm criticising.



> Sounds like you're saying the human species has a great track record when it comes to solving environmental problems.


We've solved a multitude of environmental problems.



> Society can tolerate deaths caused by certain activities but won't stand for and allow drugs to be legalized.


So says you, which is contrary to the states and countries which have or are decriminalising or legalising all or certain drugs.

Why do you think a death via one form of recreation shouldn't be tolerated when it can be shown that activity is relatively safe?

You have some perverse irrationality when it comes to drugs and are blind to the double standards to make right left and centre in favour of things you like.



> The laws would concern using them while driving and working and age.


Of course.



> Should I bring up the argument you make about cars killing more people than drugs as a valid argument for allowing drugs in society?


What would you hope to achieve by it?



> So you support taking illegal drugs while working. smh.


Where did I say that? You've jumped the gun. The article was proof that psychedelic drugs can aid work and creativity. I could cite hundreds more, especially from the creative world.



> If I want insight I think about a problem not take some drug.


That has nothing to do with what I said. You were saying insight couldn't be gained from drugs, which is a bare faced lie.



> Hey thanks for your glaring insight.


It's one you clearly need to learn.



> comparing apples with oranges


No it's not. It's yet another case of you claiming you know better than someone clearly more qualified and experienced on a topic. I'd seen you do this in other threads where you claim the credible experts are wrong and you're right. :lol



> It doesn't take much knowledge to know drugs pose quite a risk. I know drugs can be fun and so what exactly are you saying I'm ignorant of again?


Again, 'drugs' isn't one thing with equal risk.

As I've explained to you about 20 times in this thread, you're ignorant of the fact that many drugs are far safer than things you accept as 'safe' and have no qualms with them being legal.



> You show me one other person who is laughing.


An audience doesn't always participate, and haven't yet in relation to this part of the thread so how can I? I have no doubt many are laughing at your naivety and ignorance here though.



> Oh ok only your experience has any validity does it?


Yes people who are highly experienced in a topic typically have valid knowledge.



> And nutmeg is a dangerous substance when used at recreational doses such as liver damage.


:lol So is methanol.



> So if something you enjoyed like lsd was far more dangerous to most people's health you'd be perfectly ok with having it being kept illegal would you.


Of course! My entire argument is based on risk/benefit ratio. How are you now understanding that?



> And why should it be based on risk/benefit?


Can you name a better thing to base it on? It seems you base your judgements not on intellectual rationality and logic but personal bias and emotion, which is very sad/arguably wrong in relation to such matters.



> And I'm under no obligation to agree with you but you don't like that well too bad.


Of course not, but I enjoy showing how wrong you are on various topics. You often serve my agenda here very well. 



> Because they are not based on a risk/benefit analysis. How many times do I have to explain it to you????


No they often aren't, but my point is that they should. As I just asked you, what else can you base it on? Personal preference?



> if you start legalizing drugs then people will push for more to become legal so it's better to keep them all banned and that way no one will feel they are not listened to or targeted.


That's as pathetic an argument as those who argue that more equal rights for homosexuals will lead to people marrying dogs etc. Only someone who is poor at rational thinking and ignoring the fact it's a risk/benefit based legislation I'm promoting could think that.



> I'm not in support of that I'm just making a point. If you legalize one thing then someone can argue and demand you make their past time legal too no matter the risk to themselves.


See my above replies about risk/benefit balanced based legislation. The relative risk is crucial, not irrelevant!



> Yes I get it but why do you insist on allowing more dangers into the community?


I've told you various times that it could well, and would probably lead to less dangers in community. Especially if the development of even less dangerous drugs was encouraged which are the ones which are legal. (Such as New Zealand are doing)

You're support for the failed drug war indirectly makes you support the continuation of the atrocities and crimes/incarnations that are caused only by drugs being illegal. Maybe since it's because the worst of it mainly effects other ethnicities you don't really care?



> But are you ok with people illegally selling benzos and powerful painkillers over the internet or allowing all these new synthetic drugs to be legal which are untested and so there is no data to say whether they are safe or not.


I'd prefer if they were better tested, taxed and licensed like legal drugs, but it's a service that is often safer than having to buy street drugs.


----------



## jimity

> You've blatantly lying to claim I say no harm can come from certain activities. I'd stated from the very beginning there is risk in all activities. At least try and be and contextually honest, even if you have incapable of intellectual honesty.


So you are willing to accept some people will use drugs irresponsibly and die as a result?



> You won't have any realistic success trying to make a case for that being valid.


If you were the government would you let me play with nukes? I promise I'll be responsible 



> You're just dishonesty making up lies now as I destroy your weak attempts at arguments.


I'm doing nothing of the sort. Insights mean a lot while high but tend to not be so important once sober. For someone who uses drugs regularly even you should know this happens.



> It's clear you are too inexperienced/naive to even know what such insight is like. You're like a blind man trying to dictate to a sighted man what the experience of vision is. :lol


Like I said insight should be gained by contemplation not drugs.



> You've already demonstrated that you are very ignorant.


Again, ignorant about what exactly? If I suddenly said I agree with you you'd probably think the opposite :lol



> I don't need to grasp at straws, I dominate this debate, like all debates we have. It's like speaking to a child since you are so poorly educated on the matter. You probably are a child for all I know.


It's funny you are perhaps the only person that I seem to disagree with the most on this forum and I see you run into this quite a few times with other members here. And it's like speaking to a brick wall with you. You think I'll agree with you.. here.. pfft.



> Oh well done you have changed your mind again and admitted that it's not the same. That's the third instance of you forgetting what you've already said and contradicting yourself. I've said many times that other alternative states of conciousness are accessible via other means. You probably learned that from me in another thread over the years. :lol


I never said they were the same thing. You're just imsunderstand what I was saying.

And I didn't learn that from you either. Get over yourself :roll



> The minuscule risk involved for such a better experience via certain drugs is what you fail to accept as valid. You seem very cowardly in that even a tiny rare risk prevents you from living life more fully.


You say driving a car carries more risk than drugs yet I drive fear-free so you wrong there about me being a coward.



> Does that mean you think arguments can be won with idiocy and rationality?


Not agreeing with your ideas isn't idiocy if that's what you are trying to say.



> It's like someone who lives their whole life in a tiny village in Alaska and doesn't live much of a life.


Give me a break.



> Can you quantify what 'no real risk' means, since everything has a level of risk.


So do prescription drugs. If there was no risk of a psychotic break, psychotic reaction, stroke, heart attack, major impairment of judgement, if the risk was low, kind of like drinking one or two beers then that would be low enough.



> Of course there are few backwards governments who ignore the advise of professionals or do it for inane religious reasons.


Aren't countries under some kind of UN obligation not to allow drugs to be legal or something.



> Insight is often an enjoyable experience. I'm not how sure you come to the conclusion that it's only fun and not actually insight though. :?


But are they insights people take away with them or they just forget them and have no practical value in real life?



> So you can stop embarrassing yourself and earn some respect for knowing when you have been beaten?


But then what else would you have to do? I thought you enjoy this anyway 



> I didn't say being an adult automatically makes someone capable and responsible enough to engage in activities which have risk, so stop lying again please. If you don't understand how personal responsibility is applied to humans of certain ages in our society that's just more ignorance.


I was asking why you think a child shouldn't be allowed to take drugs but you think adults should be. I wanted to see if you'd say it's because they are too young to be responsible so then I can turn around and argue that adults are not as responsible as we expect them to be.



> You won't find any relevant scientific evidence which backs up that ignorant claim.


I don't want someone who might have hppd or experience a flashback flying a plane thank you. I don't need scientific claims to back up my concern either since they are certainly possible.



> That just backs up my argument about responsible use. A child is of near adult age then there are many activities that can be suitable for them to engage in under supervision of an experienced adult.


But use of much "safer" drugs likes mushrooms or lsd, would that be ok if science knew it didn't alter a childs brain in any way?



> It's as irresponsible as it is naive to think such laws are effectively enforceable.


But citizens lack respect and are irresponsible when it comes to wanting to use banned drugs.



> It's very sad you think injustice should be accepted.


You must feel very oppressed in the society you live in because it denies you drugs.



> Clearly obvious to the rights and desires of other people in your society.


I'm pretty sure you'd find more people against making drugs legal than there are people wanting them legal.


----------



## jimity

> Nonsense. Yet more ignorance if you think that applies to everyone.


Maybe not the bong heads and acid heads.



> Oh so you have u-turned and now say they do bring happiness, albeit temporary? Not very consistent are you?


How many times have I said they can be fun? And maybe you should go take a look in the mirror before you say something like that when you suggested before I'm a coward for not wanting to do something that carries any sort of risk and yet I drive.



> I'm already involved in community activities and feel very satisfied and fulfilled with life since it's full of pleasurable things. It sounds like yours isn't though which is sad.


Community service? Does that mean gathering with some people to take drugs? Or going on sas and debating :lol

And how unhappy would you be if you lost access to drugs?



> Do you think learning things I somehow already knew but wasn't aware of is a bad thing?


No but you should find another way of learning it.



> Are you trying to claim we already know everything but just need to learn it now?


Where on earth do you get this idea from? I was saying any insights you gain are simply things you already knew but never bothered to think of. And now you start spouting something I don't even know what you're talking about.



> Wow that's rich you telling my not to cite a conspiracy theory. :lol


If you're going to shoot down all conspiracy theories other people bring up then you'd better not bring one up to support your pro-drugs debate.



> So as long as there is in vestment in risky activities then they should be legal?


I'm saying we don't need to and can;t afford to rearrange the whole country. Stop saying this thinking applies to each other activity that people might have vested interests in.



> So what?


Even if your arguments were listened to by government or even had a change of government that saw drugs the way you do I don't think you'll ever get what you want 



> I want certain drugs to be legal since it's unjustifiable that they aren't when they have been proven to be less risky than many other recreational activities


If alcohol is the most dangerous substance then do you want that banned since you said of course not all drugs should be legal since some are highly dangerous?



> That's doesn't make sense in response to what I said. I think you are getting confused again.


you just want me to see your way.



> Alcohol is legal and the vast majority of people are responsible with it, (as with cannabis where that is legal), so to the contrary, just look at real world data on drug use and you should see that you are wrong, so it's you who is naive.


You can be responsible all you like but some drugs are deadly such as some synthetic cannabis which is responsible for over a thousands deaths I believe.



> Political ignorance and lobbying by the legal drug corporations that don't want other products on the market. (i.e. alcohol corporations)


How disappointing. Unless you can provide evidence for this claim then that's just a conspiracy theory :lol Hey while we're on the topic maybe it's the government itself who don't want the price of illegal drugs to go down cause they'd lose profit :lol



> Well done on realising after me educating you that that drugs do bring happiness.


And what's the quality of this happiness you talk about so much?



> I'll take that response as an admission of guilt.


No it isn't. I'm saying that saying shame on me is a tame attack.



> That goes against normal human psychology which tends to prioritise negative/dangerous experiences over positive ones, so you're wrong.


Maybe they lied to drum up support for legalization of drugs.



> Not according to data from where various drugs are legal, so please stop lying.


You tell me what countries and what drugs.



> So what?


That's because they were legal. They were perhaps bored housewives and turned to drugs. This could easily happen again.



> You are referring to a huge group of drugs all with different risk ratios. I'm not sure you even understand that. Not all drugs are the same you know.


Tell me something I don't know. I just don't care you know.



> How safe do you seem safe enough? Can you give me a fatality ratio you deem acceptable?


0 would be good. At least in terms of toxic reactions.



> I don't like that either, hence why they should be heavily taxed to accommodate health services for they few that aren't responsible (who i'd also have their licence to buy legal drugs revoked), and if someone can't hold down a job because of such issues that's their problem. Millions of people manage just fine.


Right. tobacco taxes where I live provide billions of dollars and the health services they use only add up to 300 million or so. Way out of balance.


----------



## jimity

> Only allowing electric cars is irrelevant to this debate.


Why is it?



> Because it's intellectually dishonest to ignore the masses of data that is contrary to your cherry picked examples in an attempt to make an argument.
> 
> It's shocking you don't know that. (You often do it. You frequently express self-selection bias on many topics)


So what's your point? Are you only here to point out logical fallacies? Or is what I point out not so much a problem to bring it up?



> It's your personal reasons for wanting them banned that are the issues I'm criticising.


So you are a supporter of industrial civilization and are fine with the way things are done?



> We've solved a multitude of environmental problems.


So you ignore the problems that haven't been solved and seem to imply that these are insignificant because we've already done a lot to help the environment. And you say I'm biased. If you weren't biased your response would of included something like we could do a lot more.



> So says you, which is contrary to the states and countries which have or are decriminalising or legalising all or certain drugs.


That's the first I've heard about a country legalizing ALL drugs. You name those countries that are legalizing all drugs.



> Why do you think a death via one form of recreation shouldn't be tolerated when it can be shown that activity is relatively safe?


I'm not going through this with you again.



> What would you hope to achieve by it?


I'm making a point. It's the same argument people make when they argue about why guns shouldn't be banned. If people want guns banned why not ban cars, knives, and pretty much anything else that can kill people. It's ridiculous.



> Where did I say that? You've jumped the gun. The article was proof that psychedelic drugs can aid work and creativity. I could cite hundreds more, especially from the creative world.


Maybe so but people shouldn't be using drugs while at work. Period.



> That has nothing to do with what I said. You were saying insight couldn't be gained from drugs, which is a bare faced lie.


No, insight can be gained. Now you're lying. I was saying people who use drugs probably aren't heavily into the insight as much as the other effects like visuals.



> It's one you clearly need to learn.


I already knew what you were talking about. You don't give me much credit do you? What next, you'll be explaining to me that the sun is hot because you think I didn't know that?



> No it's not. It's yet another case of you claiming you know better than someone clearly more qualified and experienced on a topic. I'd seen you do this in other threads where you claim the credible experts are wrong and you're right. :lol


So you're a credible expert on drugs? Can I see your credentials?



> Again, 'drugs' isn't one thing with equal risk.
> 
> As I've explained to you about 20 times in this thread, you're ignorant of the fact that many drugs are far safer than things you accept as 'safe' and have no qualms with them being legal.


I know drugs are different but I'll say that you can't legalize one and expect it to stop there so you might as well keep them all illegal and that's it.



> An audience doesn't always participate, and haven't yet in relation to this part of the thread so how can I? I have no doubt many are laughing at your naivety and ignorance here though.


So why make claims you have no evidence for? From your other posts it's something you like to have before making a claim. I would guess you are projecting since you've already told me I crack you up and make the mistake of thinking the "audience" is also laughing and thinking the same way you do.



> Yes people who are highly experienced in a topic typically have valid knowledge.


Are you saying you are highly experienced with drugs and so makes your knowledge vaild? Well then I've drank alcohol and smoked mj a lot of times yet no doubt you'd dismiss my opinion on those substances as invalid because I don't agree with your opinion about these things.



> :lol So is methanol.


Yeah.. and? Oh again the same argument that other things cause damage too so why not ban them? It's because they have no recreational value and so are unlikely to be abused or used to the point where they could create harm. And from what I know I don't think methanol has much recreational value. For someone who thinks they're pretty intelligent at arguing you still come up with weak arguments.



> Of course! My entire argument is based on risk/benefit ratio. How are you now understanding that?


I'm just checking. Keep your panties on.



> Can you name a better thing to base it on? It seems you base your judgements not on intellectual rationality and logic but personal bias and emotion, which is very sad/arguably wrong in relation to such matters.


I'm doing the same as the government. And if giving up or not doing something to uphold the law then I will. And besides it's not worth the risk in terms of jail time. Something you don't seem to care about. Would you throw away 10 or 20 years of your life away just to trip out? That's pretty sad if you would.



> No they often aren't, but my point is that they should. As I just asked you, what else can you base it on? Personal preference?


What they are based on now.



> That's as pathetic an argument as those who argue that more equal rights for homosexuals will lead to people marrying dogs etc. Only someone who is poor at rational thinking and ignoring the fact it's a risk/benefit based legislation I'm promoting could think that.


I wonder what the risk/benefit analysis would be about marrying animals and beastialiy. If it's a low risk I hope you don't support marrying animals and bestiality :lol



> You're support for the failed drug war indirectly makes you support the continuation of the atrocities and crimes/incarnations that are caused only by drugs being illegal.


Oh really, between the two of us whose the one buying illegal drugs and continues buying them today? You are directly supporting them.



> Maybe since it's because the worst of it mainly effects other ethnicities you don't really care?


It's not exactly something that's on my mind. But what causes more deaths? Drugs themselves or the violence trafficking them? And if you cared you'd stop funding them and cease drug taking.



> I'd prefer if they were better tested, taxed and licensed like legal drugs, but it's a service that is often safer than having to buy street drugs.


Having to buy? Nobody HAS to buy drugs from anywhere.

You are talking about all these new psychoactive substances that should be tested and taxed right? Cos I hope you're not saying benzos and something like oxycontin are ok for recreational use?


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> So you are willing to accept some people will use drugs irresponsibly and die as a result?


Of course, just as I accept people who do anything irresponsibly can and sometimes do die.



> If you were the government would you let me play with nukes? I promise I'll be responsible


Of course not, as any risk/benefit analysis would indicate.



> I'm doing nothing of the sort.


No you are blatantly lying with your claim that I think I understand all the riddles of the universe when tripping but forget them all when I've come down.



> Insights mean a lot while high but tend to not be so important once sober.


So what? Lots of new ideas and things mean a lot at first but fade from importance over time. If they are forgotten then they probably weren't that interesting.



> For someone who uses drugs regularly even you should know this happens.


If an insight isn't that important once sober than that simply means it's not a very important insight. For someone with no experience of the matter who are you to say that all insight gained on drugs is 'illusionary' of no benefit or are forgotten when sober?



> Like I said insight should be gained by contemplation not drugs.


"Should?" Do you think there is a law for how one should have ideas? :lol

Insight via any catalyst is valuable, and certain drugs are a very useful tool to aid extensive contemplation.



> Again, ignorant about what exactly?


Just read any of the many posts i've commented on it in this thread. I explain why various times.



> If I suddenly said I agree with you you'd probably think the opposite :lol


No that would just be childish.



> It's funny you are perhaps the only person that I seem to disagree with the most on this forum and I see you run into this quite a few times with other members here. And it's like speaking to a brick wall with you. You think I'll agree with you.. here.. pfft.


You state among the most ridiculous things on this forum and the 'brick wall' you encounter is due to the strength of my arguments and my confidence in them.



> I never said they were the same thing. You're just imsunderstand what I was saying.


OK so you recognise that the non-drug taking methods for achieving altered states of conciousness that exist don't provide the same states as certain drugs do. So that invalidates your argument that people should only access non-drug induced altered states since non-drug induced altered states are possible.



> And I didn't learn that from you either. Get over yourself :roll


Well it sounds like you just learned about it over the course of this thread as earlier on you denied worthwhile alternated states of conciousness were even possible via drugs.



> You say driving a car carries more risk than drugs yet I drive fear-free so you wrong there about me being a coward.


But are you scared to do something even less risky such as take certain drugs? Or is it just a selective/irrational cowardice?



> Not agreeing with your ideas isn't idiocy if that's what you are trying to say.


That's not what I'm saying. I'm asking you what you think can win an argument. Intelligence and rationale or idiocy and irrationality?



> Give me a break.


It's true. It's missing out on a significant awesome part of being human. If you are happy sticking to your normal/mundane mental state at all times then so be it, but don't doubt that there are others who cherish the other options and experiencing awesome things people like you won't.



> So do prescription drugs. If there was no risk of a psychotic break, psychotic reaction, stroke, heart attack, major impairment of judgement, if the risk was low, kind of like drinking one or two beers then that would be low enough.


So would a 1 in 500,000 chance be too much risk? We need to look at actual numbers here.



> Aren't countries under some kind of UN obligation not to allow drugs to be legal or something.


Certain drugs yes, but it's a very dated treaty and the UN are opening the doors for the reform of drug laws.



> But are they insights people take away with them or they just forget them and have no practical value in real life?


They can be insights of all qualities and use. Psychedelic drugs are well known for providing insight which can greatly assist one in their general life. I know they certainly helped my SA issues and with regards to various problem solving and creative aspects.



> But then what else would you have to do? I thought you enjoy this anyway


You're a glutton for punishment. :lol



> I was asking why you think a child shouldn't be allowed to take drugs but you think adults should be. I wanted to see if you'd say it's because they are too young to be responsible so then I can turn around and argue that adults are not as responsible as we expect them to be.


And when adults are irresponsible they often meet the consequences our culture has established.



> I don't want someone who might have hppd or experience a flashback flying a plane thank you. I don't need scientific claims to back up my concern either since they are certainly possible.


Again, this is just a very rare risk. In the same respect, would you ever get in a plane with a pilot with a rare heart condition, or some other medical condition that is highly unlikely to cause issue?



> But use of much "safer" drugs likes mushrooms or lsd, would that be ok if science knew it didn't alter a childs brain in any way?


Children aren't generally mature enough to partake in such activities, at least not without significant guidance, and even then only for the older ones. This has happened for tens of thousands of years in cultures around the world with shamanism.



> But citizens lack respect and are irresponsible when it comes to wanting to use banned drugs.


They lack respect because the related laws often aren't worthy of respect. It's unarguably irresponsible to try and maintain a well known legislative failure and refuse reform.



> You must feel very oppressed in the society you live in because it denies you drugs.


No not really. A mild annoyance.



> I'm pretty sure you'd find more people against making drugs legal than there are people wanting them legal.


It all depends on the drug, but here's a report that states 61% of Americans want cannabis to be legal. But I wasn't talking about everyone thinks. I was talking about you being oblivious to what others deem injustice as something to be dealt with, not accepted.


----------



## LemonBones

It's proof ghosts are Asholes. YOU ARE DEAD, Chill the F out brah! go watch some naked women in showers or something, instead of scratching at my walls n sht!


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Maybe not the bong heads and acid heads.


You're being very ignorant/naive again to suggest most people don't get most of their happiness from means other than helping their community.



> How many times have I said they can be fun?


I'm not sure, but the fact you now have is the point since you initially denied they could be.



> And maybe you should go take a look in the mirror before you say something like that when you suggested before I'm a coward for not wanting to do something that carries any sort of risk and yet I drive.


You're missing the writing between the lines regarding the point about the car. 



> Community service? Does that mean gathering with some people to take drugs? Or going on sas and debating :lol


It can mean anything one does with people in their community of course. :?



> And how unhappy would you be if you lost access to drugs?


Somewhat.



> No but you should find another way of learning it.


Why? That would be idiotic. Why not learn from whatever source works?



> Where on earth do you get this idea from? I was saying any insights you gain are simply things you already knew but never bothered to think of. And now you start spouting something I don't even know what you're talking about.


You've just repeated the same idea! How can you claim we know things that we have never thought about? That's just absurd.



> If you're going to shoot down all conspiracy theories other people bring up then you'd better not bring one up to support your pro-drugs debate.


Erm, no, I'll just keep ripping apart your terrible arguments on both topics thanks very much. :lol



> I'm saying we don't need to and can;t afford to rearrange the whole country.


The war on drugs costs trillions of dollars, so to the contrary, along with taxation of drugs that statement is clearly false.



> Stop saying this thinking applies to each other activity that people might have vested interests in.


So you don't have to think about your double standards?



> Even if your arguments were listened to by government or even had a change of government that saw drugs the way you do I don't think you'll ever get what you want


We'll see. As I say, there is reform going on in many countries.



> If alcohol is the most dangerous substance then do you want that banned since you said of course not all drugs should be legal since some are highly dangerous?


Since I have no personal problem with alcohol I wouldn't want it banned, but in a consistent legislation system it would be.



> you just want me to see your way.


I have no idea what you even meant.



> You can be responsible all you like but some drugs are deadly such as some synthetic cannabis which is responsible for over a thousands deaths I believe.


Indeed it's a travesty a relatively safe drug like cannabis being illegal encourages interested people to use more dangerous alternatives.



> How disappointing. Unless you can provide evidence for this claim then that's just a conspiracy theory :lol


Well unfortunately for you I can cite evidence, such as the UK government sacking their chief scientific drug adviser when he correct fully highlighted the very low risk and subsequent framing of the dangers compared to things like horse riding. The government decided to stay ignorant and ignore professional guidance.



> And what's the quality of this happiness you talk about so much?


What like on a rating of 1 to 10? :?



> No it isn't. I'm saying that saying shame on me is a tame attack.


I guess you don't care about people highlighting your lies.



> Maybe they lied to drum up support for legalization of drugs.


Maybe who lied? The field of psychology which states it? :?



> You tell me what countries and what drugs.


Portugal is the main one. It decriminalised all drugs ten years ago and consumption dropped. The Netherlands is another example where more liberal drug policies exist and likewise they have a lower user rate then nearby countries which have conservative laws. In fact in the case of Ireland, which introduced very conservative laws in 2010 drug use has actually increased, so drugs being illegal can actually be counter productive if you want people to use them less.



> That's because they were legal. They were perhaps bored housewives and turned to drugs. This could easily happen again.


See my previous reply.



> Tell me something I don't know. I just don't care you know.


You care enough to let us all in on how little you know about this topic. 



> 0 would be good. At least in terms of toxic reactions.


I wasn't asking what your ideal ration would be, and 0 is impossible for anything since everything has a degree of risk. I just wanted to see if you could admit and understand relative risk.



> Right. tobacco taxes where I live provide billions of dollars and the health services they use only add up to 300 million or so. Way out of balance.


Take that up your with your government.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Why is it?


Why is the type of car relevant?



> So what's your point? Are you only here to point out logical fallacies? Or is what I point out not so much a problem to bring it up?


My point is that you are a serial cherry picker which you try and use due to often being intellectually dishonest, and while I'm here for various reasons, pointing such things out is one I like to do.



> So you are a supporter of industrial civilization and are fine with the way things are done?


What would you think that? What does it have to do with what you were replying to?



> So you ignore the problems that haven't been solved and seem to imply that these are insignificant because we've already done a lot to help the environment. And you say I'm biased. If you weren't biased your response would of included something like we could do a lot more.


What a blatant lie. Saying humans have a good track record of solving environmental problems in no way infers that the problems that still exist should be ignored. My reply was a direct response to your statement that humans don't have a great track record of solving environmental problems.

Bemoaning me for not adding something else to my direct reply saying it means I don't care about unsolved issues is just absurd. :lol



> That's the first I've heard about a country legalizing ALL drugs. You name those countries that are legalizing all drugs.


I didn't state any country has legalised all drugs. Re-read the post and note the use of the world 'or'.

I'm not going through this with you again.[/quote]

No wonder when I've so thoroughly destroyed your argument based on it. :lol



> I'm making a point. It's the same argument people make when they argue about why guns shouldn't be banned. If people want guns banned why not ban cars, knives, and pretty much anything else that can kill people. It's ridiculous.


To the contrary, rational data driven risk/benefit analysis informed legislation is what should happen. What's ridiculous is to say things should be banned because you don't personally like them. :lol



> Maybe so but people shouldn't be using drugs while at work. Period.


I'm inclined to agree.



> No, insight can be gained. Now you're lying. I was saying people who use drugs probably aren't heavily into the insight as much as the other effects like visuals.


Wow your calling me a liar for pointing out your u-turn over the course of this thread where you started saying drugs have no benefits and now you are saying they can provide insight. :lol

Different drugs do totally different things, and people take them for different reasons. You keep sounding like you think drugs is 'one thing'.



> I already knew what you were talking about.


Another lie, as it's in plain text your wrote earlier in the thread that you didn't.



> You don't give me much credit do you? What next, you'll be explaining to me that the sun is hot because you think I didn't know that?


It wouldn't surprise me if I had to teach you how to tie your shoes. :lol



> So you're a credible expert on drugs? Can I see your credentials?


No you're confusing two different statements. Try re-reading it noting the part I assign to me.



> I know drugs are different but I'll say that you can't legalize one and expect it to stop there so you might as well keep them all illegal and that's it.


That's as absurd as saying that anything which has any degree of risk should be banned.



> So why make claims you have no evidence for? From your other posts it's something you like to have before making a claim. I would guess you are projecting since you've already told me I crack you up and make the mistake of thinking the "audience" is also laughing and thinking the same way you do.


Based on previous experience of our debates plenty members of the audience chip in to deride you. Therefore I can suspect it will be the same for this one.



> Are you saying you are highly experienced with drugs and so makes your knowledge vaild? Well then I've drank alcohol and smoked mj a lot of times yet no doubt you'd dismiss my opinion on those substances as invalid because I don't agree with your opinion about these things.


Yes I am saying my greater experience and knowledge makes me far more likely that you to have the better informed and more valid arguments.



> Yeah.. and? Oh again the same argument that other things cause damage too so why not ban them? It's because they have no recreational value and so are unlikely to be abused or used to the point where they could create harm. And from what I know I don't think methanol has much recreational value. For someone who thinks they're pretty intelligent at arguing you still come up with weak arguments.


My argument from the start is how various recreational actives are more harmful than various drugs. That's not part of a weak argument. It's a core tenet of a very strong logical argument based on equality.



> I'm just checking. Keep your panties on.


Does that mean you understand it yet though?



> I'm doing the same as the government.


Well at least you can admit you follow their unscientific/logical policies. :lol



> And if giving up or not doing something to uphold the law then I will. And besides it's not worth the risk in terms of jail time. Something you don't seem to care about. Would you throw away 10 or 20 years of your life away just to trip out? That's pretty sad if you would.


Most recreational drugs aren't illegal. I very rarely take illegal drugs. My point is though that the ones that are should also be legal for the numerous reasons I've been over. Legislation such as ruining people lives just for having a substance that facilities something as natural as tripping is a travesty.



> What they are based on now.


So, mainly ignorance, tabloid media pressure and personal preference?



> I wonder what the risk/benefit analysis would be about marrying animals and beastialiy. If it's a low risk I hope you don't support marrying animals and bestiality :lol


The fact you have to even question if animal abuse can be deemed low risk/harm is very worrying.



> Oh really, between the two of us whose the one buying illegal drugs and continues buying them today? You are directly supporting them.


I don't buy illegal drugs. You've just assumed I did.



> It's not exactly something that's on my mind. But what causes more deaths? Drugs themselves or the violence trafficking them? And if you cared you'd stop funding them and cease drug taking.


As I say, I don't take illegal drugs.



> Having to buy? Nobody HAS to buy drugs from anywhere.


If you want to buy something you have to buy it from somewhere though. :roll



> You are talking about all these new psychoactive substances that should be tested and taxed right? Cos I hope you're not saying benzos and something like oxycontin are ok for recreational use?


Benzos and Oxycotin are FDA approved prescription drugs. Both have their uses on and off label, and great responsibility is required to safely and sustainability use recreationally. We'd need to examine a risk/benefit study to establish if they should be legal for recreational use. Highly addictive drugs obviously put the risk significantly higher than non addictive drugs.


----------



## millenniumman75

I don't know - you'd have to ask Regan MacNeil about that.....she was talking to someone named "Captain Howdy" on a Ouija board. :stu :troll


----------



## jimity

> No you are blatantly lying with your claim that I think I understand all the riddles of the universe when tripping but forget them all when I've come down.


Well then why do you you use drugs for? You said they give insight so I'm left to assume you think you know all the answers to the universe when frying.



> If an insight isn't that important once sober than that simply means it's not a very important insight. For someone with no experience of the matter who are you to say that all insight gained on drugs is 'illusionary' of no benefit or are forgotten when sober?


Maybe there are disturbances with memory that lead to the loss of the insight. And who are you to say it's isn't? Is that just because your insight helped you?



> "Should?" Do you think there is a law for how one should have ideas? :lol
> 
> Insight via any catalyst is valuable, and certain drugs are a very useful tool to aid extensive contemplation.


There already is a law that says not to be in possession of certain drugs. I'm saying there should be other ways is because I'm disapproving of your route to enlightenment.



> Just read any of the many posts i've commented on it in this thread. I explain why various times.


I know there are different classes of drugs, I know they produce altered states of consciousness, I know they can bring euphoria. You can't sit there saying i'm ignorant of this.



> You state among the most ridiculous things on this forum and the 'brick wall' you encounter is due to the strength of my arguments and my confidence in them.


Says the guy who likes to go on all sorts of mystical experiences to imaginary lands and dimensions filled with all sorts of sights and sounds because they're fun. And to hear you describe and talk about how fun doing those things are, I wonder how ridiculous it might sound to some people.



> So that invalidates your argument that people should only access non-drug induced altered states since non-drug induced altered states are possible.


How so and why so?



> Well it sounds like you just learned about it over the course of this thread as earlier on you denied worthwhile alternated states of conciousness were even possible via drugs.


Well you are wrong. And by worthwhile I was talking about positive benefits for society.



> But are you scared to do something even less risky such as take certain drugs? Or is it just a selective/irrational cowardice?


Um, being concerned for my mental and physical health when it comes to drugs has got nothing to do with cowardness which you are trying to say I'm a coward for not trying drugs you've tried. Must make you feel like a big strong man.



> That's not what I'm saying. I'm asking you what you think can win an argument. Intelligence and rationale or idiocy and irrationality?


Both can win.



> It's true. It's missing out on a significant awesome part of being human. If you are happy sticking to your normal/mundane mental state at all times then so be it, but don't doubt that there are others who cherish the other options and experiencing awesome things people like you won't.


And how much time do you devote to drugs in terms of hours per day?



> So would a 1 in 500,000 chance be too much risk? We need to look at actual numbers here.


Depends what the risk is? If the risk of death then I'd say that would be quite high.



> Certain drugs yes, but it's a very dated treaty and the UN are opening the doors for the reform of drug laws.


Yes I'm sure countries around the world would be happy to change current drug laws 



> You're a glutton for punishment. :lol


And you say I'm cowardly. Bring it on.



> Again, this is just a very rare risk. In the same respect, would you ever get in a plane with a pilot with a rare heart condition, or some other medical condition that is highly unlikely to cause issue?


Then why did you say that was an ignorant statement that couldn't be backed up scientifically when clearly there are cases of flashbacks. And if I new a pilot had a heart condition I wouldn't want to go on board.



> No not really. A mild annoyance.


Probably because you've got access to NPS which are legal in many places.


----------



## livetolovetolive

You guys are way off topic.


----------



## livetolovetolive

This is what happens when someone denies any emotional investment in their view points. Endless tangents, no focus or direction, back and forth forever about nothing.


----------



## jimity

> You're being very ignorant/naive again to suggest most people don't get most of their happiness from means other than helping their community.


And I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. I'm saying if you felt like you had no sense of belonging in the community and had no purpose and then you'd probably feel not so happy about it.



> I'm not sure, but the fact you now have is the point since you initially denied they could be.


I don't believe I said drugs are not fun, ever.



> You're missing the writing between the lines regarding the point about the car.


Maybe you should be a little more direct rather than having me to decode you.



> It can mean anything one does with people in their community of course. :?


Yes, even community work for a drug offense :lol Maybe that's what your community service is that you say you do.



> Why? That would be idiotic. Why not learn from whatever source works?


As long as thy're legal 



> You've just repeated the same idea! How can you claim we know things that we have never thought about? That's just absurd.


I'm talking about the sort of thoughts you might have while using certain drugs like thinking people are bacteria of some higher life form or something like that. These thoughts are already inside of you, it's only when on drugs you think these types of absurd thoughts.



> Erm, no, I'll just keep ripping apart your terrible arguments on both topics thanks very much. :lol


As always your arguments are the best to you aren't they.



> The war on drugs costs trillions of dollars, so to the contrary, along with taxation of drugs that statement is clearly false.


The US spends around 50 billion per year on the war on drugs so yeah right trillions and it would take a lot more than 50 billion per year and more than the war on drugs have costed so far to go back to living in villages with no roads. Just glad your not in charge of any countries finances.



> So you don't have to think about your double standards?


Well excuse me for having double standards when it comes to reconstructing the entire countries infrastructure.



> We'll see. As I say, there is reform going on in many countries.


How'd it work out in the uk  Pretty sure most would be the same.



> I have no idea what you even meant.


I'm saying your not giving up until I change my mind and adopt your view on drug policy.



> Well unfortunately for you I can cite evidence, such as the UK government sacking their chief scientific drug adviser when he correct fully highlighted the very low risk and subsequent framing of the dangers compared to things like horse riding. The government decided to stay ignorant and ignore professional guidance.


That shows nothing about the legal drug industry conspiring to work against the competition of other drugs which you claimed was happening.

Don't you think the government would have legalized drugs long ago? I mean all the extra tax dollars they could take in and less money spent on putting people in prison. I wonder why?



> What like on a rating of 1 to 10? :?


Yes. And also how long this happiness lasts for.



> I guess you don't care about people highlighting your lies


Is it shame on me for not wanting drugs legalized as well?



> Maybe who lied? The field of psychology which states it? :?


the people who the information was gathered from which I think would of been the public.



> so drugs being illegal can actually be counter productive if you want people to use them less.


You go take it up with your government. I'd like to see if they'd listen to your arguments. Also would like to see how a judge would respond to you arguing about drug laws in court. Have fun with that 



> See my previous reply.


Yes but there is now a lot of fear surrounding drugs and many people are fearful of touching them. This is unlike all those decades ago before people were informed on any dangers drugs posed and so would be more likely to use them back then. Turning around drug policy and saying the dangers of drugs were grossly exaggerated would eventually lead to this loss of fear and more openness to trying them.



> You care enough to let us all in on how little you know about this topic.


the info is right up on the screen for me to see.



> I wasn't asking what your ideal ration would be, and 0 is impossible for anything since everything has a degree of risk. I just wanted to see if you could admit and understand relative risk.


Cannabis is zero. LSD is zero. So you are wrong. Some drugs don't have much of a danger in terms of some toxic drug reaction that causes death. And yes I can understand it but doesn't mean I have to be rationale about the topic when it comes to drugs.


----------



## jimity

> Why is the type of car relevant?


Because electric cars are the most efficient.



> My point is that you are a serial cherry picker which you try and use due to often being intellectually dishonest, and while I'm here for various reasons, pointing such things out is one I like to do.


I start a topic and you start taking it off the topic by emphasizing fallacies which miss any point I'm making which then just lead to a debate that has nothing to do with the topic. Why don't you go in the sa part of the forum and pick out all the little distortions in people's thinking.



> What does it have to do with what you were replying to?


I just wanted to know what you think about the sort of environmental problems caused by industry to get the topic back to what I was talking about. Because you seemed to be turning it into a debate about whose right and whose wrong.



> What a blatant lie. Saying humans have a good track record of solving environmental problems in no way infers that the problems that still exist should be ignored. My reply was a direct response to your statement that humans don't have a great track record of solving environmental problems.
> 
> Bemoaning me for not adding something else to my direct reply saying it means I don't care about unsolved issues is just absurd. :lol


then why don't you give your full opinion instead of letting me fill in the gaps you leave about things? To me you seemed to take the attitude of don't worry about it we're slowly working on it and we've had lots of success in the past dealing with problems so we'll solve it.



> No wonder when I've so thoroughly destroyed your argument based on it. :lol


Can't argue with someone who thinks they've one just because they use a rationale based argument.



> To the contrary, rational data driven risk/benefit analysis informed legislation is what should happen. What's ridiculous is to say things should be banned because you don't personally like them. :lol


I bet pollies have used drugs before and liked them too. But they don't ban it out of personally not liking them.



> Wow your calling me a liar for pointing out your u-turn over the course of this thread where you started saying drugs have no benefits and now you are saying they can provide insight. :lol


I don't believe I said drugs are not fun and provide no insight and if you think I said it then you are misunderstood which is actually different from lying.



> Different drugs do totally different things, and people take them for different reasons. You keep sounding like you think drugs is 'one thing'.


I know that. How so do I sound like that?



> Another lie, as it's in plain text your wrote earlier in the thread that you didn't.


sounds more like you have a selective memory.



> It wouldn't surprise me if I had to teach you how to tie your shoes. :lol


Maybe you should be a comedian? I bet the audience is laughing at that comment.

Now your patronizing me not to mention you're ignoring the fact that I can function a computer and type and drive a car.



> That's as absurd as saying that anything which has any degree of risk should be banned.


So you keep saying.



> Based on previous experience of our debates plenty members of the audience chip in to deride you. Therefore I can suspect it will be the same for this one.


Well where are they?



> Yes I am saying my greater experience and knowledge makes me far more likely that you to have the better informed and more valid arguments.


I could have easily made the same arguments for legalizing drugs and understanding them as you do. I just chose to take the other side.



> My argument from the start is how various recreational actives are more harmful than various drugs. That's not part of a weak argument. It's a core tenet of a very strong logical argument based on equality.





> Does that mean you understand it yet though?


yes



> Well at least you can admit you follow their unscientific/logical policies. :lol


then why do you persist in debating when this is going nowhere?



> So, mainly ignorance, tabloid media pressure and personal preference?


yes



> The fact you have to even question if animal abuse can be deemed low risk/harm is very worrying.


I know it's not a low risk but was more saying if it was low risk would you be ok with it?

You want things legal based on risk/benefit assessment then if something is indecent but low risk I want to know what your limits would be.



> I don't buy illegal drugs. You've just assumed I did


Anymore you mean, is that right?



> As I say, I don't take illegal drugs.


But you've had cocaine haven't you? That probably came from mexico.


----------



## unemployment simulator

livetolovetolive said:


> You guys are way off topic.


there are other people still reading their replies? I gave up ten thousand words back...


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Well then why do you you use drugs for?


For pleasure and insight.



> You said they give insight so I'm left to assume you think you know all the answers to the universe when frying.


To assume that gaining insight means 'all the answers to the universe' are revealed is pretty silly.



> Maybe there are disturbances with memory that lead to the loss of the insight.


As could be the case with any insight.



> And who are you to say it's isn't? Is that just because your insight helped you?


I can say it isn't illusionary or of no benefit since it has helped me, and many others. I have no idea why you think you can debate this.



> There already is a law that says not to be in possession of certain drugs. I'm saying there should be other ways is because I'm disapproving of your route to enlightenment.


What about all the relevant legal drugs? Do you disapprove of how they can provide insight and enlightenment as well?



> I know there are different classes of drugs, I know they produce altered states of consciousness, I know they can bring euphoria. You can't sit there saying i'm ignorant of this.


You say that now, but as I say, it's there for anyone to read that you denied they did earlier in the thread.



> Says the guy who likes to go on all sorts of mystical experiences to imaginary lands and dimensions filled with all sorts of sights and sounds because they're fun. And to hear you describe and talk about how fun doing those things are, I wonder how ridiculous it might sound to some people.


Why would they sound ridiculous? I'm not stating they are objectively real, and I don't think anyone denies that hallucinations can happen.



> How so and why so?


Because you recognise that the non-drug taking methods for achieving altered states of conciousness that exist don't provide the same states as certain drugs do, as I said and you didn't quote.



> Well you are wrong.


Anyone can re-read the thread and see how you have changed what you are saying.



> And by worthwhile I was talking about positive benefits for society.


A lame attempt at trying to cover up your mistake up. :roll



> Um, being concerned for my mental and physical health when it comes to drugs has got nothing to do with cowardness which you are trying to say I'm a coward for not trying drugs you've tried. Must make you feel like a big strong man.


I was asking you questions, not stating you were a coward for not doing things which are less risky than things you already do.



> Both can win.


Wow. I'll keep a note of your claim that idiocy and irrationality can win an argument for future use when debating you. 



> And how much time do you devote to drugs in terms of hours per day?


That's like asking how much time do you devote to going on vacation per day. It doesn't make much sense. It's an occasional rather than daily thing.



> Depends what the risk is? If the risk of death then I'd say that would be quite high.


Yes let's say of death. Would you refuse to do something that had a 1 in 500,000 chance of death?



> Yes I'm sure countries around the world would be happy to change current drug laws


Some are.



> Then why did you say that was an ignorant statement that couldn't be backed up scientifically when clearly there are cases of flashbacks. And if I new a pilot had a heart condition I wouldn't want to go on board.


I didn't say it couldn't be backed up scientifically. I clearly said it was very rare.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> And I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. I'm saying if you felt like you had no sense of belonging in the community and had no purpose and then you'd probably feel not so happy about it.


Well that's not how it came across.



> I don't believe I said drugs are not fun, ever.


You initially said there were zero benefits to them.



> Maybe you should be a little more direct rather than having me to decode you.


You're still missing the point.



> As long as thy're legal


OK so does that mean you are happy for people to use drugs for insight as long as they are legal?



> I'm talking about the sort of thoughts you might have while using certain drugs like thinking people are bacteria of some higher life form or something like that. These thoughts are already inside of you, it's only when on drugs you think these types of absurd thoughts.


I wouldn't say thoughts exist until they are thought about.



> The US spends around 50 billion per year on the war on drugs so yeah right trillions and it would take a lot more than 50 billion per year and more than the war on drugs have costed so far to go back to living in villages with no roads. Just glad your not in charge of any countries finances.


What has going back to living in villages with no roads have to do with this? Are you trying to say the trillions of dollars spent on the war on drugs couldn't have been better spent on far more productive and beneficial things? :lol



> Well excuse me for having double standards when it comes to reconstructing the entire countries infrastructure.


Why are you talking about reconstructing the entire countries infrastructure?



> How'd it work out in the uk  Pretty sure most would be the same.


Not so great in the UK, but there is good progress elsewhere.



> I'm saying your not giving up until I change my mind and adopt your view on drug policy.


Changing your mind isn't really on my agenda. It never is.



> That shows nothing about the legal drug industry conspiring to work against the competition of other drugs which you claimed was happening.


Lobbyists don't publish such info.



> Don't you think the government would have legalized drugs long ago? I mean all the extra tax dollars they could take in and less money spent on putting people in prison. I wonder why?


It's only recently some are waking up to the futileness of much drug legislation. Look at all the US states for example who have recently legalised cannabis.



> Yes. And also how long this happiness lasts for.


That depends on the drug. The scores wouldn't make much sense unless contextualised with something you could relate to anyway.

All you need to know is that they rate high enough to be worth it.



> Is it shame on me for not wanting drugs legalized as well?


No, just your dishonesty.



> the people who the information was gathered from which I think would of been the public.


The psychology studies which show people tend to prioritise negative/dangerous experiences over positive ones has nothing to do with drug legalisation.



> You go take it up with your government. I'd like to see if they'd listen to your arguments.


I already have in certain ways.



> Yes but there is now a lot of fear surrounding drugs and many people are fearful of touching them. This is unlike all those decades ago before people were informed on any dangers drugs posed and so would be more likely to use them back then. Turning around drug policy and saying the dangers of drugs were grossly exaggerated would eventually lead to this loss of fear and more openness to trying them.


Well as I say, in countries where there has been drug policy reform there has rarely been an increase.



> the info is right up on the screen for me to see.


You need to see it on screen for you to know how little you know?



> Cannabis is zero. LSD is zero. So you are wrong. Some drugs don't have much of a danger in terms of some toxic drug reaction that causes death.


I wasn't talking about risk of dying specifically. We hadn't actually agreed on what risk we were talking about. As I say, you can find risk in anything.



> And yes I can understand it but doesn't mean I have to be rationale about the topic when it comes to drugs.


I love it when you admit to not being rational. :lol


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> I start a topic and you start taking it off the topic by emphasizing fallacies which miss any point I'm making which then just lead to a debate that has nothing to do with the topic.


Why should I care about the point you are trying to make? I'll comment on issues I observe regardless. They are usually related, at least until we end up with threads like this!



> Why don't you go in the sa part of the forum and pick out all the little distortions in people's thinking.


Those forums aren't for debating.



> I just wanted to know what you think about the sort of environmental problems caused by industry to get the topic back to what I was talking about. Because you seemed to be turning it into a debate about whose right and whose wrong.


Remind me what were you asking me about environmental problems caused by industry again?



> then why don't you give your full opinion instead of letting me fill in the gaps you leave about things?


It was blatantly obvious that me saying humans have a good track record of solving environmental problems didn't mean I thought all the existing environmental problems should be ignored. I didn't need to state that.



> To me you seemed to take the attitude of don't worry about it we're slowly working on it and we've had lots of success in the past dealing with problems so we'll solve it.


It's probably most serious issue mankind has faced, and while I am cautiously optimistic it's still of great concern.



> Can't argue with someone who thinks they've one just because they use a rationale based argument.


Oh yeah because you think arguments can be won with illogical and irrational arguments. :lol



> I bet pollies have used drugs before and liked them too. But they don't ban it out of personally not liking them.


Some have, but there are various reasons why they ban them which are counter to rational data driven risk/benefit analysis.

I was talking about you wanting them banned due to not liking them anyway.



> I don't believe I said drugs are not fun and provide no insight and if you think I said it then you are misunderstood which is actually different from lying.


You said they have no value, but fun and insight are valuable.



> I know that. How so do I sound like that?


Because you never differentiate between legal/illegal or relatively safe or not that safe drugs. You seem to have a blanket opposition to all drugs, regardless of legality or risk.



> sounds more like you have a selective memory.


Anyone is free to go and read it.



> Maybe you should be a comedian? I bet the audience is laughing at that comment.
> 
> Now your patronizing me not to mention you're ignoring the fact that I can function a computer and type and drive a car.


Well done. :lol



> So you keep saying.


Yeah.



> Well where are they?


Eating chocolates? :lol Maybe some will chip in later. The fact remains, they often do.



> I could have easily made the same arguments for legalizing drugs and understanding them as you do. I just chose to take the other side.


That sounds like it's part of your illogical/irrational strategy.



> yes


Good.



> then why do you persist in debating when this is going nowhere?


For the same reason you do?



> yes


OK, I'm glad you admitted it.



> I know it's not a low risk but was more saying if it was low risk would you be ok with it?


No because it would be morally wrong.



> You want things legal based on risk/benefit assessment then if something is indecent but low risk I want to know what your limits would be.


That's fine, and animal abuse has a moral element that drugs don't.



> Anymore you mean, is that right?


Correct.



> But you've had cocaine haven't you? That probably came from mexico.


Yeah. But due to the issues it causes in the likes of Mexico I'd say it's best avoided, just like any product which causes issues in it's production or distribution.


----------



## ugh1979

unemploymentsimulator2016 said:


> there are other people still reading their replies? I gave up ten thousand words back...


Yeah we've gone so far off topic I doubt there is anyone left. :lol

Oh well, until next time...


----------



## jimity

> What about all the relevant legal drugs? Do you disapprove of how they can provide insight and enlightenment as well?


No. But if they are dangerous then yes. But you can expect these legal drugs to become illegal and then I'll disapprove.



> You say that now, but as I say, it's there for anyone to read that you denied they did earlier in the thread.


Quote me.



> Why would they sound ridiculous? I'm not stating they are objectively real, and I don't think anyone denies that hallucinations can happen.


Because those people can't understand why anyone would want to float around an exotic dimension and call that fun. Why don't you go to the beach or something instead?



> Wow. I'll keep a note of your claim that idiocy and irrationality can win an argument for future use when debating you.


It's winning so far when it comes to drugs. Just look at the current policy on drugs. Whose having the last say?



> Yes let's say of death. Would you refuse to do something that had a 1 in 500,000 chance of death?


No. But doing something also depends on how you do it that lowers or increases your risk.



> Some are.


A few european countries and some south american countries. Wow. And you think the UN will change it's policy on drugs? Hah! Most countries will not change their policies like you think will happen.



> I didn't say it couldn't be backed up scientifically. I clearly said it was very rare.


This is what I said:

Sorry but drugs can alter an adults brain as well and I certainly wouldn't want to be on a plane being flown by someone who had used lsd many times before.

This is your reply:

You won't find any relevant scientific evidence which backs up that ignorant claim.

So is hppd and flashbacks just imaginary that has nothing to do with taking hallucinogenic drugs?


----------



## jimity

> You initially said there were zero benefits to them.


None that I see worthy enough to do a 180 turn on laws.



> You're still missing the point.


You explain it to me.



> OK so does that mean you are happy for people to use drugs for insight as long as they are legal?


Yes. Yes I am. But as long as they've been tested for safety.



> I wouldn't say thoughts exist until they are thought about.


You're missing what I'm trying to say. If you think drugs give you access to knowledge from the outside the same way you learn about something you never knew from reading a book then you are wrong. On drugs you are putting ideas together you already know about things. You are just being creative while high.



> What has going back to living in villages with no roads have to do with this? Are you trying to say the trillions of dollars spent on the war on drugs couldn't have been better spent on far more productive and beneficial things? :lol


You argue that cars are more dangerous than drugs and why not ban cars too. If you want cars banned then this is probably how the country needs to be built in order to operate without cars.

Well how much money has the war on drugs saved in terms of social and health costs from drug abuse?



> Why are you talking about reconstructing the entire countries infrastructure?


See above.



> Not so great in the UK, but there is good progress elsewhere.


Maybe in terms of possessing drugs, just don't expect to see any drugs on the shelves in your local pharmacy any time soon.

Perhaps in regards to cannabis. But don't expect cocaine, heroin, lsd and dmt and various others to become legal anytime soon.



> Changing your mind isn't really on my agenda. It never is.


Your "agenda". Are you apart of some organisation or something?



> Lobbyists don't publish such info.


Unless you can provide evidence for this claim I'd pass it off as just another conspiracy theory, something you generally disapprove of but seem to be more than happy to use to support your arguments.



> It's only recently some are waking up to the futileness of much drug legislation. Look at all the US states for example who have recently legalised cannabis.


And look how it's spreading like wildfire around the world :lol



> No, just your dishonesty.


Well excuse me for not wanting drugs in the community.



> I already have in certain ways.


Is that by breaking the law?



> Well as I say, in countries where there has been drug policy reform there has rarely been an increase.


And it's probably because of the reason I gave you. All these decades of programming has scared a lot of people off drugs and willingness to try them.



> You need to see it on screen for you to know how little you know?


You put up data for me to look at then claim I no little about it and I'm saying you're wrong because I can read and understand the data that you put up.


----------



## jimity

> Why should I care about the point you are trying to make? I'll comment on issues I observe regardless. They are usually related, at least until we end up with threads like this!


So it doesn't end up like this.



> Those forums are for debating.


I assume you mean't aren't for debating. And you know that if you did it probably would end up the same like this thread.



> Remind me what were you asking me about environmental problems caused by industry again?


If I remember correctly I think it was do you think industry is causing too much environmental damage to the planet?



> It was blatantly obvious that me saying humans have a good track record of solving environmental problems didn't mean I thought all the existing environmental problems should be ignored. I didn't need to state that.


Maybe to yourself.



> Oh yeah because you think arguments can be won with illogical and irrational arguments. :lol


Just look at politicians. They do it all the time and win.



> You said they have no value, but fun and insight are valuable.


Not good enough. Some drugs might have value in a therapeutic setting though.



> Because you never differentiate between legal/illegal or relatively safe or not that safe drugs. You seem to have a blanket opposition to all drugs, regardless of legality or risk.


Leaving out tobacco/alcohol. That's because to legalise a few drugs but keep all the others banned wouldn't seem fair to people who aren't interested in those drugs that were legalised.



> Well done. :lol


A backhanded insult.



> Eating chocolates? :lol Maybe some will chip in later. The fact remains, they often do.


It's you who usually does that.



> That sounds like it's part of your illogical/irrational strategy.


So if I said I wanted drugs legalised and said lots of drugs are safe and there is no rational reason for them being illegal then that would be me being irrational/illogical. Try explaining yourself out of that one.



> No because it would be morally wrong.


But whose the judge on what's morally wrong?



> Correct.


But then you are as guilty as I am if you think I'm supporting the drug cartels and others involved in the illegal drug trade.



> Yeah. But due to the issues it causes in the likes of Mexico I'd say it's best avoided, just like any product which causes issues in it's production or distribution.


But still you've been propping up the cartels bank balance by using that substance and telling me I am guilty of supporting them. Unless you admit to being guilty instead of trying to say that's all in the past I'm going to have to say you have double standards.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> No. But if they are dangerous then yes. But you can expect these legal drugs to become illegal and then I'll disapprove.


So again we get to the question of what is dangerous? I in 500,000 chance of death?

What about a drug which is legal in one state/country and not in another?



> Quote me.


Here you go:


jimity said:


> Drugs have no real value at all in society.


To which I replied, "Again such ignorance and naivety. How is something that gives many people some of the best experiences of their lives and in the case of psychedelics open mental doors to wonderful ways of thinking and potential mental health therapy have "no real value"?

Don't be so arrogant to think that because you aren't interested they have no value to anyone else."

You u-turned in time and admitted their value, but that was your initial stance.



> Because those people can't understand why anyone would want to float around an exotic dimension and call that fun. Why don't you go to the beach or something instead?


Someone could just as easily question why someone would want to go to a beach and lie around. :lol (I know i'd hate to do that) If you mean anything can sound ridiculous to some people then fair enough.



> It's winning so far when it comes to drugs. Just look at the current policy on drugs. Whose having the last say?


No it's not. The popular argument these days is heavily in favour of drug law reform. The argument need not apply to laws. Hence why there have been many laws in history that have taken decades or longer of popular opposition argument to reform.



> No. But doing something also depends on how you do it that lowers or increases your risk.


Of course dangerous use increases risk. I'm not promoting dangerous use of drugs. I'm promoting safe use, and by safe I mean safer than drinking alcohol or horse riding for example.



> A few european countries and some south american countries. Wow. And you think the UN will change it's policy on drugs? Hah! Most countries will not change their policies like you think will happen.


Actually the UN is gearing up for pushing drug law reform. Source.



> This is what I said:
> 
> Sorry but drugs can alter an adults brain as well and I certainly wouldn't want to be on a plane being flown by someone who had used lsd many times before.
> 
> This is your reply:
> 
> You won't find any relevant scientific evidence which backs up that ignorant claim.
> 
> So is hppd and flashbacks just imaginary that has nothing to do with taking hallucinogenic drugs?


OK my mistake, I did mean rare. However, the part about the plane is still ignorant if you consider what else can cause the same phenomena.

"Case reports of mental health problems following psychedelics are often comparable to case reports of mental health problems linked to intensive meditation, visiting holy sites, or viewing beautiful artwork and sublime natural scenes,"

So, would you get on a place flown by someone who had visited a holy site?


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> None that I see worthy enough to do a 180 turn on laws.


But what about the ones that are legal? You don't want a 180 turn on their legal status?



> You explain it to me.


It was highlighting your irrationality.



> Yes. Yes I am. But as long as they've been tested for safety.


OK, this is good. I welcome that and think i've made progress. 

I'm all for drugs being tested for safety, so we can help people use safe ones and avoid dangerous ones much easier. That's the most sensible and responsible stance since prohibition is unworkable.



> You're missing what I'm trying to say. If you think drugs give you access to knowledge from the outside the same way you learn about something you never knew from reading a book then you are wrong. On drugs you are putting ideas together you already know about things. You are just being creative while high.


I know what you are trying to say, (anything our minds can create already exist in our minds), but I totally disagree with that, just as I disagree that a chunk of rock already contains the sculpture a sculptor makes of it. Creation is something new that didn't exist before. Not something taken from a 'bank'.



> You argue that cars are more dangerous than drugs and why not ban cars too. If you want cars banned then this is probably how the country needs to be built in order to operate without cars.


Obviously I don't want cars banned, as I'm happy with the risk/benefit ratio of them. It's you who is making irrational claims based on the risk/benefit ratio of them.



> Well how much money has the war on drugs saved in terms of social and health costs from drug abuse?


That's an unknowable figure, but the fact that the war on drugs has little impact on drug use means it's nowhere near the saving that could be made by reforming drug law and earning taxes from them.



> See above.


As I say, I've never promoted banning cars.



> Maybe in terms of possessing drugs, just don't expect to see any drugs on the shelves in your local pharmacy any time soon.


They already are sold in local shops.



> Perhaps in regards to cannabis. But don't expect cocaine, heroin, lsd and dmt and various others to become legal anytime soon.


Maybe not, but there are hundreds of drugs very similar to some of them that are.



> Your "agenda". Are you apart of some organisation or something?


You've never heard of a personal agenda?



> Unless you can provide evidence for this claim I'd pass it off as just another conspiracy theory, something you generally disapprove of but seem to be more than happy to use to support your arguments.


If you don't think industries lobby governments to protect their interests then so be it. :roll I don't need to cite specific cases for that to be obvious.

What theories do you think I promote? This coming from the man who usually speaks like an encyclopaedia of conspiracy theories. :lol



> And look how it's spreading like wildfire around the world :lol


Well, it is. :? Look at all the action going on in drug reform circles and countries doing it. That was unthinkable just 5 years ago.



> Well excuse me for not wanting drugs in the community.


Based on irrational reasoning. 



> Is that by breaking the law?


No. Campaigning isn't illegal.



> And it's probably because of the reason I gave you. All these decades of programming has scared a lot of people off drugs and willingness to try them.


No I think it's that not everyone is interested in taking drugs. Just like everyone doesn't drink or do X recreational activity.



> You put up data for me to look at then claim I no little about it and I'm saying you're wrong because I can read and understand the data that you put up.


The data I posted earlier doesn't really pertain to the crux of our argument at this point.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> So it doesn't end up like this.


If they end up like this so be it. I enjoy going off on tangents. 



> I assume you mean't aren't for debating. And you know that if you did it probably would end up the same like this thread.


Indeed I did, and yes of course if they were long debates would sometimes ensue.



> If I remember correctly I think it was do you think industry is causing too much environmental damage to the planet?


Yes, but what about it?



> Maybe to yourself.


I don't think many people think achieving some things means there is nothing else to achieve. :?



> Just look at politicians. They do it all the time and win.


You'd have to establish what is meant by 'won'. Popular support, or just getting a bill passed by agreeable people?



> Not good enough. Some drugs might have value in a therapeutic setting though.


Fun and insight aren't good enough, even if the risks are low? You seem to be u-turning again. :lol



> Leaving out tobacco/alcohol. That's because to legalise a few drugs but keep all the others banned wouldn't seem fair to people who aren't interested in those drugs that were legalised.


What absolute nonsense. Individual things should be legal based on their risk/benefit ratio (special circumstances not withstanding such as moral issues). Just because one thing is legal doesn't mean anything remotely like it should be and vice versa.



> It's you who usually does that.


Sometimes it's me, sometimes it's others, either way, people do.



> So if I said I wanted drugs legalised and said lots of drugs are safe and there is no rational reason for them being illegal then that would be me being irrational/illogical. Try explaining yourself out of that one.


No that would be you being rational/logical. Why would you think that would you being irrational/illogical?



> But whose the judge on what's morally wrong?


Society. Public opinion is hugely against animal cruelty, and I'm happy for things public opinion is hugely against to be illegal regardless of their level of safety.



> But then you are as guilty as I am if you think I'm supporting the drug cartels and others involved in the illegal drug trade.


Having coke a few times is no where near the same as indirectly supporting the endurance of drug cartels via the laws that give them a product which makes them billions.



> But still you've been propping up the cartels bank balance by using that substance and telling me I am guilty of supporting them. Unless you admit to being guilty instead of trying to say that's all in the past I'm going to have to say you have double standards.


See above. Since I no longer take coke then I can't be accused of double standards. Doing something a few times many years ago doesn't mean you still support it. :?


----------



## jimity

> So again we get to the question of what is dangerous? I in 500,000 chance of death?
> 
> What about a drug which is legal in one state/country and not in another?


1 per 500,000 seems pretty dangerous for taking a drug. So yes that figure is what I'd call dangerous.

I'm ok with one state/country having a drug legal while another being illegal. Not much someone can do in that situation any way.



> Here you go:
> 
> To which I replied, "Again such ignorance and naivety. How is something that gives many people some of the best experiences of their lives and in the case of psychedelics open mental doors to wonderful ways of thinking and potential mental health therapy have "no real value"?
> 
> Don't be so arrogant to think that because you aren't interested they have no value to anyone else."
> 
> You u-turned in time and admitted their value, but that was your initial stance.


But then you could also say legalising drugs could help raise tax revenue which has some value in it too.

Actually the UN is gearing up for pushing drug law reform. Source.

Just read this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/john-coyne/ungass-2016-change-to-glo_b_8815362.html



> OK my mistake, I did mean rare. However, the part about the plane is still ignorant if you consider what else can cause the same phenomena.
> 
> "Case reports of mental health problems following psychedelics are often comparable to case reports of mental health problems linked to intensive meditation, visiting holy sites, or viewing beautiful artwork and sublime natural scenes,"
> 
> So, would you get on a place flown by someone who had visited a holy site?


But are flashbacks and hppd a mental health problem? To me they seem more like visual disturbances which could make flying a machine at 700 km/h a bit more difficult with tracers and other visual disturbances in your vision.


----------



## jimity

> But what about the ones that are legal? You don't want a 180 turn on their legal status?


If they are highly dangerous then yes I do.



> I'm all for drugs being tested for safety, so we can help people use safe ones and avoid dangerous ones much easier. That's the most sensible and responsible stance since prohibition is unworkable.


But no matter how dangerous a drug is people still will use them such as krocodile. I don't you'd want to see that drug legal anywhere. And if you think prohibiting drugs doesn't help keep them out of the hands of people then that's wrong. Where I live psudeoephedrine was easily available over the counter and criminal bikies used start at the top of the country and work they're way down to the last pharmacy and would have well over a ton of cough and cold tablets by the time they finished. They can't do this now.



> Maybe not, but there are hundreds of drugs very similar to some of them that are.


It's only a matter of time until they're off the shelves. Wait until a number of media highlighted deaths.



> You've never heard of a personal agenda?


Yes I have.



> If you don't think industries lobby governments to protect their interests then so be it. :roll I don't need to cite specific cases for that to be obvious.


So is the tobacco industry lobbying the government to make alcohol illgeal or vice versa?



> What theories do you think I promote? This coming from the man who usually speaks like an encyclopaedia of conspiracy theories. :lol


That it's the tobacco and alcohol industry trying to make sure illegal drugs aren't legalized. Are drugs cutting into tobacco and alcohol sales in countries where some drugs are legal? As if that'd cut into their business any way :roll

And just because I've brought up some conspiracy theories doesn't mean I can't call you out when you bring up one :roll



> Well, it is. :? Look at all the action going on in drug reform circles and countries doing it. That was unthinkable just 5 years ago.


Things are moving at a snails pace, slower than action on climate change :lol. And many countries don't have the political courage to bring up the subject either so that itself is a major stumbling block to any kind of reform other than tougher laws and sentencing :lol


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> 1 per 500,000 seems pretty dangerous for taking a drug. So yes that figure is what I'd call dangerous.


But that figure is no where near dangerous enough to consider not doing it when drinking alcohol comes with a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying, playing football comes with a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying, cycling a 1 in 140,000 chance of dying, or as I was saying earlier, being in a car at 1 in 500,000. (The latter is actually far riskier considering how often we get in cars)

So you must admit those are more dangerous activities that someone with a 1 in 500,000 rate of death yes? (Taking MDMA for example has about a 1 in 50,000 chance of dying.)

(Source 1  Source 2)



> I'm ok with one state/country having a drug legal while another being illegal. Not much someone can do in that situation any way.


So as long as a drug is legal you have no problems with people using them?



> But then you could also say legalising drugs could help raise tax revenue which has some value in it too.


I've said that frequently.



> Just read this.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/john-coyne/ungass-2016-change-to-glo_b_8815362.html


Well that's an opinion piece and we'll see what happens. It's going to happen sometime. The growing support for drug law reform and the recognition that the war on drugs does more harm than good isn't going anyway.



> But are flashbacks and hppd a mental health problem? To me they seem more like visual disturbances which could make flying a machine at 700 km/h a bit more difficult with tracers and other visual disturbances in your vision.


If a pilot was experiencing any problematic health problems they shouldn't be flying. The sudden onset of an issue is of course why there is a co-pilot.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> If they are highly dangerous then yes I do.


Going by your claim that 1 in 500,000 is highly risky and worthy of banning, despite all the things people legally do which are far riskier there are few drugs which would therefore qualify as highly dangerous. (Unless you agreed driving was highly dangerous for example)



> But no matter how dangerous a drug is people still will use them such as krocodile. I don't you'd want to see that drug legal anywhere. And if you think prohibiting drugs doesn't help keep them out of the hands of people then that's wrong. Where I live psudeoephedrine was easily available over the counter and criminal bikies used start at the top of the country and work they're way down to the last pharmacy and would have well over a ton of cough and cold tablets by the time they finished. They can't do this now.


My point was thought that the better and preferably legal availability of safer drugs would mean people are far less likely to use more dangerous drugs.



> It's only a matter of time until they're off the shelves. Wait until a number of media highlighted deaths.


Yeah while the media ignores the 1 in 10,000 people that die from drinking since it's so normalised it's not newsworthy. It's no wonder many people see this as such an injustice and double standard. It's the fact deaths from many drugs are so rare they are newsworthy.



> So is the tobacco industry lobbying the government to make alcohol illgeal?


No because it's well established that alcohol increases many smokers desire to smoke.



> That it's the tobacco and alcohol industry trying to make sure illegal drugs aren't legalized.


I didn't say they were the only factor, but lobbying has undoubtedly been done.



> Are drugs undercutting tobacco and alcohol sales in countries where some drugs are legal? As if that'd cut into their business any way :roll


Of course drug use cuts into their sales. If someone on a night out is buying drinking less because they are taking a drug then that's obvious. When an industry has a monopoly on selling the most common drug people use they don't want competitors selling alternatives.



> And just because I've brought up some conspiracy theories doesn't mean I can't call you out when you bring up one.


It's a conspiracy theory to claim that industry doesn't lobby government.



> Things are moving at a snails pace, slower than action on climate change :lol. And many countries don't have the political courage to bring up the subject either so that itself is a major stumbling block to any kind of reform other than tougher laws and sentencing :lol


I didn't say it was going to happen overnight. It's a process.


----------



## jimity

> Yes, but what about it?


I only asked because you were stingy on what your thoughts were on global warming being a serious issue when first brought up by me.



> You'd have to establish what is meant by 'won'. Popular support, or just getting a bill passed by agreeable people?


The latter.



> Fun and insight aren't good enough, even if the risks are low? You seem to be u-turning again. :lol


Well I have to support my argument don't I?



> What absolute nonsense. Individual things should be legal based on their risk/benefit ratio (special circumstances not withstanding such as moral issues). Just because one thing is legal doesn't mean anything remotely like it should be and vice versa.


We're stamping discrimination out 



> No that would be you being rational/logical. Why would you think that would you being irrational/illogical?


I was thinking you thought that would be irrational from what you said, asking if that would be apart of my irrational based argument.



> Society. Public opinion is hugely against animal cruelty, and I'm happy for things public opinion is hugely against to be illegal regardless of their level of safety.


So is there overwhelming support for legalisation of drugs in public opinion? Many people are very much against drug use regardless of the risks.



> Having coke a few times is no where near the same as indirectly supporting the endurance of drug cartels via the laws that give them a product which makes them billions.


But when you add up all the people who "try a few lines" it probably adds up to millions worth of drugs. And my opinion on drug policy in no way whatsoever affects the governments policy on drugs or it's laws.



> See above. Since I no longer take coke then I can't be accused of double standards. Doing something a few times many years ago doesn't mean you still support it. :?


Like I said, add up all the coke used by experimentation a few times here and there and there is a lot of money involved.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> I only asked because you were stingy on what your thoughts were on global warming being a serious issue when first brought up by me.


I said it was the most serious issue facing our species.



> The latter.


OK so that's not really a win IMO. That's just idiots agreeing within their own little boys club.



> Well I have to support my argument don't I?


If you think saying there is no value in fun or to insight then good luck with that!



> We're stamping discrimination out


Who's we? You seem to be pro discrimination on the topic.



> So is there overwhelming support for legalisation of drugs in public opinion? Many people are very much against drug use regardless of the risks.


There is majority opinion for drug law reform in many places.

Example:


> A new Ipsos MORI poll for the Transform Drugs Policy Foundation shows 53% of the public want cannabis legalised or decriminalised, and 67% want a review of Britain's approach to drugs. Source





> But when you add up all the people who "try a few lines" it probably adds up to millions worth of drugs.


But I'm not all people. I don't think those people should be taking coke due to all the crime and violence in it's supply line.



> And my opinion on drug policy in no way whatsoever affects the governments policy on drugs or it's laws.


You're individual opinion on it's own no, but combined with all the people that think like you then that does. You are contributing to the problem.



> Like I said, add up all the coke used by experimentation a few times here and there and there is a lot of money involved.


And as I say, you were talking about me, not all people who use coke, so don't try and change the question in an attempt to cover up your error.


----------



## batman can

Proof that some people are idiots maybe.

(I'm just responding to the title. Too much thread here to read)


----------



## jimity

> So you must admit those are more dangerous activities that someone with a 1 in 500,000 rate of death yes? (Taking MDMA for example has about a 1 in 50,000 chance of dying.)


But does that take into account how a person carries out these activities and what actually caused them to die? Does 1 person die per 10,000 people from drinking one beer for example?

And btw driving a car is an essential thing people must do. Does playing sport increase one's chances of living longer that might balance the scales?



> So as long as a drug is legal you have no problems with people using them?


If it's been tested for safety then yes.


----------



## jimity

> Going by your claim that 1 in 500,000 is highly risky and worthy of banning, despite all the things people legally do which are far riskier there are few drugs which would therefore qualify as highly dangerous. (Unless you agreed driving was highly dangerous for example)


If you give 500,000 people a drug and one healthy person dies from a bad reaction from it I think society would find it unacceptable for it to continue to be sold. It's drug taking that society finds unacceptable since it is viewed differently than other recreational activities or any other risky activity like working in dangerous environments or with heavy machinary. Basically people have an expectation that when doing something like rock climbing the person doing it will take all the precautions necessary. Whereas with drugs there is no telling who will react bad to it and it's this unknowing that causes the hesitancy to accept them.



> Yeah while the media ignores the 1 in 10,000 people that die from drinking since it's so normalised it's not newsworthy. It's no wonder many people see this as such an injustice and double standard. It's the fact deaths from many drugs are so rare they are newsworthy.


But is that 1 in 10,000 people dying from some kind of reaction to a small amount or from driving while drunk or overdosing on it or some disease caused by excess usage?



> No because it's well established that alcohol increases many smokers desire to smoke.


Well why aren't they lobbying the government to stop putting out health warnings about alcohol and smoking?

And you also say if drugs were legalised it wouldn't affect how many people take drugs so then that means people wouldn't stop drinking or smoking to take other drugs instead. And illegal drugs are widespread anyway but that doesn't affect smokes and alcohol sales so why do you think legalising drugs would affect sales?



> I didn't say they were the only factor, but lobbying has undoubtedly been done.


Even if it has I hardly think that's the reason they're illegal.



> Of course drug use cuts into their sales. If someone on a night out is buying drinking less because they are taking a drug then that's obvious. When an industry has a monopoly on selling the most common drug people use they don't want competitors selling alternatives.


Has all these legal drugs that are available cut into the tobacco/alcohol industry?



> It's a conspiracy theory to claim that industry doesn't lobby government.


I'm saying they don't lobby for making drugs stay illegal? It's more of a conspiracy to say drugs are still illegal due to the competition successfully lobbying the government. I think the government realizes just how much money they could make from taxing drugs and saving on prison and court costs.


----------



## newbornmind

I reckon it's legit!


----------



## KelsKels

Wtf did this thread turn into?


----------



## jimity

> I said it was the most serious issue facing our species.


Only after I questioned you further.



> OK so that's not really a win IMO. That's just idiots agreeing within their own little boys club.


So what is it? Their little boys club or the lobbying done by the legal drug industry?



> If you think saying there is no value in fun or to insight then good luck with that!


Not when it involves drugs.



> Who's we? You seem to be pro discrimination on the topic.


The government.



> There is majority opinion for drug law reform in many places.


That's just cannabis. I think many people's opinion on cannabis is changing because probably because of it's reported health benefits.



> But I'm not all people. I don't think those people should be taking coke due to all the crime and violence in it's supply line.


Neither am I.



> You're individual opinion on it's own no, but combined with all the people that think like you then that does. You are contributing to the problem.


Well I could also argue that about you people who use a small amount of cocaine. All adds up. And you can't seriously blame the government for causing these problems. It's the citizens who are the users of cocaine that are directly financing the cartels so stop shifting the blame onto people opposed to drugs :lol

And is it really the public's opinion on drugs that affects the drug policy? Many people are opposed to current drug laws then why aren't governments changing laws much quicker to match public opinion?



> And as I say, you were talking about me, not all people who use coke, so don't try and change the question in an attempt to cover up your error.


I was trying to point out your error about how you said just using a little coke doesn't really contribute anything to drug violence. You are ignoring looking at the big picture.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> If you give 500,000 people a drug and one healthy person dies from a bad reaction from it I think society would find it unacceptable for it to continue to be sold.


You think, but I bet millions of people are in fact happy with those odds since they are often aware of the similar risks involved in many other things they do.



> It's drug taking that society finds unacceptable since it is viewed differently than other recreational activities or any other risky activity like working in dangerous environments or with heavy machinary. Basically people have an expectation that when doing something like rock climbing the person doing it will take all the precautions necessary. Whereas with drugs there is no telling who will react bad to it and it's this unknowing that causes the hesitancy to accept them.


There's no telling who will have an accident when horse riding or playing football either, and it can be very hard to take precautions against it as well.

Society already accepts one of the most dangerous drugs, (alcohol), and support for some other drugs is growing for many of the reasons I've discussed.



> But is that 1 in 10,000 people dying from some kind of reaction to a small amount or from driving while drunk or overdosing on it or some disease caused by excess usage?


I don't think that figure includes drunk driving deaths, but it will include bad reactions, choking on vomit in their sleep, excess intoxication and the diseases that alcohol can induce.



> Well why aren't they lobbying the government to stop putting out health warnings about alcohol and smoking?


Because there are well established health risks so they couldn't get away with it.



> And you also say if drugs were legalised it wouldn't affect how many people take drugs so then that means people wouldn't stop drinking or smoking to take other drugs instead. And illegal drugs are widespread anyway but that doesn't affect smokes and alcohol sales so why do you think legalising drugs would affect sales?


How do you know drugs don't already cut into tobacco and alcohol sales?

It also really depends on what drugs we are talking about. Some might cut into the drinks industries sales, others might not.



> Even if it has I hardly think that's the reason they're illegal.


Yeah such things don't have a single reason.



> Has all these legal drugs that are available cut into the tobacco/alcohol industry?


It's hard to tell, but if someone on a night out (or in) is using a different drug from alcohol or tobacco in any way then yeah it probably is.



> I'm saying they don't lobby for making drugs stay illegal? It's more of a conspiracy to say drugs are still illegal due to the competition successfully lobbying the government. I think the government realizes just how much money they could make from taxing drugs and saving on prison and court costs.


As I say, there are various factors. Lobbying is just one.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Only after I questioned you further.


So what? I don't remember you saying it at all. Should I assume you don't think it is then?



> So what is it? Their little boys club or the lobbying done by the legal drug industry?


You're getting confused about what we are talking about. You were saying irrational and illogical arguments can win, to which I replied only when most the people arguing are irrational and illogical regarding the topic.



> Not when it involves drugs.


Yeah well you just make yourself look even sillier by saying fun and insight from a source you don't like isn't valuable to anyone. Very arrogant in fact. You are no one to say what others value.



> The government.


Your government is pro-discrimination? It can be in certain ways.



> That's just cannabis. I think many people's opinion on cannabis is changing because probably because of it's reported health benefits.


Ah so you see when health benefits are more widely reported common public perception can change. 



> Neither am I.


So why say I am?



> Well I could also argue that about you people who use a small amount of cocaine. All adds up. And you can't seriously blame the government for causing these problems. It's the citizens who are the users of cocaine that are directly financing the cartels so stop shifting the blame onto people opposed to drugs :lol


You seem to have missed the part where I said I was against cocaine use due to the problems it causes, so 'my people' are the ones who don't use it. 

If you think drug laws have no implication on the existence of cartels then that's incredibly naive. Do you honestly think they would exist otherwise? I'm not saying the blame is entirely with the government, as demand plays a part, but the two together create a huge problem. I'm the one who is saying do whatever is needed to reduce or remove the cartels, where as you are saying keep things as they are, which clearly doesn't work.



> And is it really the public's opinion on drugs that affects the drug policy? Many people are opposed to current drug laws then why aren't governments changing laws much quicker to match public opinion?


As we've seen with the various referendums on cannabis use in various states and countries yes public opinion can shape drug laws.



> I was trying to point out your error about how you said just using a little coke doesn't really contribute anything to drug violence. You are ignoring looking at the big picture.


Again you're missing the crucial point that it was a tiny amount a long time ago, so no, nothing I _do_ contributes to drug violence. Your support for the laws which prompt it does though.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

KelsKels said:


> Wtf did this thread turn into?


I quickly scanned some later posts and just saw:



> Well excuse me for having double standards when it comes to reconstructing the entire countries infrastructure.


This thread has certainly gone somewhere.


----------



## jimity

> Society already accepts one of the most dangerous drugs, (alcohol), and support for some other drugs is growing for many of the reasons I've discussed.


That's because it is relatively safe when used in moderation and not consumed to excess. What other drugs are supported besides cannabis? So with other drugs available what makes you think people won't go over the top with their usage? Then we'll see what drugs cause the most damage.



> I don't think that figure includes drunk driving deaths, but it will include bad reactions, choking on vomit in their sleep, excess intoxication and the diseases that alcohol can induce.


Again, most caused by excess usage. You can't expect drugs to be available and then for people to use them responsibly.



> How do you know drugs don't already cut into tobacco and alcohol sales?


people who want to drink will still drink and it's still a popular choice amongst drug users and so any cut into sales would be minimal.


----------



## jimity

> Should I assume you don't think it is then?


No.



> Yeah well you just make yourself look even sillier by saying fun and insight from a source you don't like isn't valuable to anyone. Very arrogant in fact. You are no one to say what others value.


Hey you can have all the fun you like... in prison 



> Ah so you see when health benefits are more widely reported common public perception can change.


yet despite all the warning about tobacco and alcohol people's opinion on them don't change and still continue to use them regardless.



> So why say I am?


Just to support my argument.



> You seem to have missed the part where I said I was against cocaine use due to the problems it causes, so 'my people' are the ones who don't use it.


Are you not using it because of the violence associated with it or because you don't enjoy cocaine?



> I'm not saying the blame is entirely with the government, as demand plays a part, but the two together create a huge problem. I'm the one who is saying do whatever is needed to reduce or remove the cartels, where as you are saying keep things as they are, which clearly doesn't work.


But no where did you point out cocaine users as responsible for financing the cartels. If people stopped breaking the law then this problem wouldn't exist. And what makes you think legalizing drugs will kill off the cartels? Maybe if the drugs were real cheap like $5 per gram (which would create a whole new bunch of addicts no doubt) but you want them heavily taxed which just encourages black market sales where drugs are cheaper on the black market than in shops. For example tobacco is legal and yet there is a large black market for it in countries particularly where it's heavily taxed.



> Again you're missing the crucial point that it was a tiny amount a long time ago, so no, nothing I _do_ contributes to drug violence. Your support for the laws which prompt it does though.


You telling me that is as ridiculous as you saying my anti alcohol stance is influencing the governments policy on alcohol. I don't influence the government on drugs at all. I've never written or called up leaders to continue supporting their current laws so you tell me how my opinion (not others who have the same) support the cartels? And your cocaine use involved the exchange of money for drugs. So where do you think some of that money went to?


----------



## eukz

Persephone The Dread said:


> I quickly scanned some later posts and just saw:
> 
> This thread has certainly gone somewhere.


I come from 2116. The battle goes on.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> That's because it is relatively safe when used in moderation and not consumed to excess.


Just like many other drugs. That's the whole point!



> What other drugs are supported besides cannabis?


There's growing support for non-addictive drugs like MDMA and certain psychedelics to be legal for use in therapy and possibly recreation. And there is lots of support for at least the decriminalisation of drugs for personal use.



> So with other drugs available what makes you think people won't go over the top with their usage? Then we'll see what drugs cause the most damage.


Hundreds of other drugs are already available, and millions of people take them, so we already know their harms to various degrees.

Did you forget about this research, or just conveniently dismiss it?












> Again, most caused by excess usage. You can't expect drugs to be available and then for people to use them responsibly.


How naive. So you don't think people en masse can be sold alcohol and be expected to use it responsibly as well then, or do you have a double standard? Only a small minority of people who use drugs or alcohol don't use them responsibly.



> people who want to drink will still drink and it's still a popular choice amongst drug users and so any cut into sales would be minimal.


To the contrary, if alcohol was the only drug available it would have much bigger sales.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Hey you can have all the fun you like... in prison


I'm not doing anything illegal, and that's a really lame thing to say. It's like me saying I hope you go to prison for doing something that didn't harm or effect anyone.



> yet despite all the warning about tobacco and alcohol people's opinion on them don't change and still continue to use them regardless.


So what? If someone chooses to do something with risk so be it. (Everything has a degree of risk) Who are you to say they shouldn't be allowed to do certain things which are no more risky that many things which are legal? As I keep telling you, the risks of alcohol and even less with many drugs are in line with driving a car or various recreational activities so perfectly acceptable by many people.

You just have a poor knowledge of risk. That's pretty normal though unless you learn about it, at least in part due to the way the media portrays certain things.



> Just to support my argument.


Well at least you admit it. :lol Yeah calling me 'all people' isn't a very good way to substantiate your argument.



> Are you not using it because of the violence associated with it or because you don't enjoy cocaine?


Both, and other reasons.



> But no where did you point out cocaine users as responsible for financing the cartels.


Where the money comes from was too obvious to mention.



> If people stopped breaking the law then this problem wouldn't exist.


Unless you give people another option that's never going to happen. Just look at the prohibition era.



> And what makes you think legalizing drugs will kill off the cartels? Maybe if the drugs were real cheap like $5 per gram (which would create a whole new bunch of addicts no doubt) but you want them heavily taxed which just encourages black market sales where drugs are cheaper on the black market than in shops. For example tobacco is legal and yet there is a large black market for it in countries particularly where it's heavily taxed.


Again, look at the prohibition era and how things changed when it ended. Black market alcohol still exists as well, but is it a major problem, no?



> You telling me that is as ridiculous as you saying my anti alcohol stance is influencing the governments policy on alcohol. I don't influence the government on drugs at all. I've never written or called up leaders to continue supporting their current laws so you tell me how my opinion (not others who have the same) support the cartels?


Of course you don't personally directly influence policy, (I never said you did, hence why I said indirectly), but you are part of a group of people that helps keeps the laws in place, where as I'm not part of a group that takes coke so I don't help the cartels endure. Ending the harm and terror the cartels cause is much more important than the health issues from drugs for a minority of users IMO.



> And your cocaine use involved the exchange of money for drugs. So where do you think some of that money went to?


I've never bought it, only taken it a few times a long time ago.


----------



## jimity

> Did you forget about this research, or just conveniently dismiss it?


But you're banking on drug use to remain steady meaning people who don't already take drugs won't start experimenting. And using the few countries who have legalized some drugs as evidence to support that.



> How naive. So you don't think people en masse can be sold alcohol and be expected to use it responsibly as well then, or do you have a double standard? Only a small minority of people who use drugs or alcohol don't use them responsibly.


And by responsible do you mean not using a drug at moderate/safe doses? If that is so the safe drinking limit is at only 2 - 3 standard drinks which means far more people go past that limit meaning not they are not responsible or concerned about their health.



> To the contrary, if alcohol was the only drug available it would have much bigger sales.


By much bigger how much bigger are we talking? Is it in the billions?


----------



## jimity

> I'm not doing anything illegal, and that's a really lame thing to say. It's like me saying I hope you go to prison for doing something that didn't harm or effect anyone.


I was saying that if you buy illegal drugs then you run the risk of going to prison. So if you want fun and insight then going to prison for drug possession will allow you plenty of time for fun and insight. Oh but of course you only buy legal drugs don't you...



> As I keep telling you, the risks of alcohol and even less with many drugs are in line with driving a car or various recreational activities so perfectly acceptable by many people.


Acceptable to whom? The people who use drugs?



> Unless you give people another option that's never going to happen. Just look at the prohibition era.


One option is to taint the drugs with something that will give the users such a health scare they'll never touch drugs again.



> Again, look at the prohibition era and how things changed when it ended. Black market alcohol still exists as well, but is it a major problem, no?


Maybe that's because alcohol can be quite cheap to buy so the black market for it isn't such a good business.



> but you are part of a group of people that helps keeps the laws in place


So you think if the majority of the population of the US wants all drugs legalised the politicians would be willing to change the laws. I highly doubt you'll see anything else other than cannabis legal.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> But you're banking on drug use to remain steady meaning people who don't already take drugs won't start experimenting. And using the few countries who have legalized some drugs as evidence to support that.


People who take drugs already often experiment, especially due to the fluid drug market where new compounds are appearing all the time to get round state/country level bans etc. I think if there was a option of some relatively safe legals options most interested people would be happy to take them rather than do the word of securing more obscure and/or illegal drugs. (New Zealand are in the process of trying to establish this for example)



> And by responsible do you mean not using a drug at moderate/safe doses?


I assume you didn't mean 'not'? Yes responsible in this context means moderate/[pretty]safe.



> If that is so the safe drinking limit is at only 2 - 3 standard drinks which means far more people go past that limit meaning not they are not responsible or concerned about their health.


Well the 'safe' drinking limit has just been changed to 14 units a week in my country. It varies bt country. For me it's about 30 in Spain for example. I'm all for health warnings coming with such products so people can make an informed choice. Of course _some _people go further and will drink more than the advised amount, but unless it's having a truly negative effect on their life or others rather than just a hangover then there is no major issue. It just needs adult responsibility, which happily the vast majority of people can do, as the they with anything else.



> By much bigger how much bigger are we talking? Is it in the billions?


Probably yeah.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> I was saying that if you buy illegal drugs then you run the risk of going to prison. So if you want fun and insight then going to prison for drug possession will allow you plenty of time for fun and insight. Oh but of course you only buy legal drugs don't you...


I don't see how being in prison is going to bring fun, and there are few psychedelics in prisons so limited options for drug assisted insight. :?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here? Are you saying going to jail would achieve the goals of fun and insight better than taking certain drugs?



> Acceptable to whom? The people who use drugs?


Many people who value personal liberty and choice rather than unjust double standards authoritarian laws.



> One option is to taint the drugs with something that will give the users such a health scare they'll never touch drugs again.


Wow that's a pretty extremist idea. Akin to saying lets poison sugary sodas to make people ill so they won't want to drink them again. It's not ethical in the slightest, or workable, and is totally immoral.



> Maybe that's because alcohol can be quite cheap to buy so the black market for it isn't such a good business.


Alcohol is more expensive that what I'd regard an equal amount of drugs. (i.e. an evening worths)



> So you think if the majority of the population of the US wants all drugs legalised the politicians would be willing to change the laws. I highly doubt you'll see anything else other than cannabis legal.


I'm not sure why you would even ask that at it's patently obvious is not a ubiquitous opinion, just one with significant support in certain places. (At least for reform including decriminalisation in the first instance)


----------



## jimity

> Well the 'safe' drinking limit has just been changed to 14 units a week in my country. It varies bt country. For me it's about 30 in Spain for example. I'm all for health warnings coming with such products so people can make an informed choice. Of course _some _people go further and will drink more than the advised amount, but unless it's having a truly negative effect on their life or others rather than just a hangover then there is no major issue. It just needs adult responsibility, which happily the vast majority of people can do, as the they with anything else.


This highlights the difference between alcohol and certain drugs like meth and cocaine. They tend to be a lot more addictive than alcohol and many people get addicted a lot more quickly and easily not to mention things like the damage to kidneys and teeth from doing meth.


----------



## jimity

> I don't see how being in prison is going to bring fun, and there are few psychedelics in prisons so limited options for drug assisted insight. :?


Nutmeg is one option.



> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here? Are you saying going to jail would achieve the goals of fun and insight better than taking certain drugs?


I'm saying that your desire to fulfill your god-given right to take drugs will probably only end up with you in prison.



> Wow that's a pretty extremist idea. Akin to saying lets poison sugary sodas to make people ill so they won't want to drink them again. It's not ethical in the slightest, or workable, and is totally immoral.


And yet I think people would still continue using tainted drugs and food :roll



> Alcohol is more expensive that what I'd regard an equal amount of drugs. (i.e. an evening worths)


Depends on what you're drinking. I can by 4 litres of wine, the equivalent of 40 standard drinks for less than $15. Pretty cheap I'd say.



> I'm not sure why you would even ask that at it's patently obvious is not a ubiquitous opinion, just one with significant support in certain places. (At least for reform including decriminalisation in the first instance)


I'm just asking hypothetically.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> This highlights the difference between alcohol and certain drugs like meth and cocaine. They tend to be a lot more addictive than alcohol and many people get addicted a lot more quickly and easily not to mention things like the damage to kidneys and teeth from doing meth.


Yes of course there are larger risks with some drugs than others.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Nutmeg is one option.


:lol



> I'm saying that your desire to fulfill your god-given right to take drugs will probably only end up with you in prison.


Since I only take legal drugs that's impossible.

However, only a tiny percentage of people who take illegal drugs ever get caught, and even less end up going to prison, so you're wrong in that respect as well.



> Depends on what you're drinking. I can by 4 litres of wine, the equivalent of 40 standard drinks for less than $15. Pretty cheap I'd say.


Depends on where you are drinking as well then, as it would never be that cheap many places. Still, there are cheaper drugs.


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> Yes of course there are larger risks with some drugs than others.


Which is why I can't understand why you want highly addictive drugs legalized and sold in the shop for any one to buy. If you are wrong and use of certain drugs go up what do you expect the government to do? Just sit back and think it's a human rights violation to take away people's right to take drugs. It's immoral to sit back and do nothing. Look at the problem of opium in china over 100 years ago. Tens of millions of opium smoking junkies. What makes you think something like that can't happen when drugs are legalised?


----------



## jimity

:lol

Don't underestimate nutmeg.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Which is why I can't understand why you want highly addictive drugs legalized and sold in the shop for any one to buy. If you are wrong and use of certain drugs go up what do you expect the government to do? Just sit back and think it's a human rights violation to take away people's right to take drugs. It's immoral to sit back and do nothing. Look at the problem of opium in china over 100 years ago. Tens of millions of opium smoking junkies. What makes you think something like that can't happen when drugs are legalised?


I never said anything about them being open to anyone to buy. Vendors would of course have to be licensed and only sell to adults. It may well be that having highly addictive drugs legal is unworkable, and we just have to do nothing about the terror and suffering having them illegal causes (due to organised crime), but that's immoral. It's a difficult situation. What we do know is that the current laws don't work, and may cause more harm than not in many respects. Harm reduction is the goal, so more liberal laws are needed. I think legalising less additive or non-addictive drugs which could in turn prevent people from turning to highly addictive illegal drugs could be an option. Certainly decriminalising personal amounts is a start, as sending people to prison for personal drug possession causes far more harm than it prevents.


----------



## jimity

> I never said anything about them being open to anyone to buy. Vendors would of course have to be licensed and only sell to adults.


Some people would be willing to sell the drugs they buy to minors who might be willing to pay higher prices to get their hands on them. And due to a lack of any criminal consequences for drug possession this could cause drug use to go up which if it does could cause a different problem like what was going on in china long ago.



> It may well be that having highly addictive drugs legal is unworkable, and we just have to do nothing about the terror and suffering having them illegal causes (due to organised crime), but that's immoral. It's a difficult situation.


The terror and suffering you talk about I gather is the mexican cartels. But the cartels have been around for a long time and the killings didn't used to happen on the scale of today. It only spiked when the government changed.



> What we do know is that the current laws don't work, and may cause more harm than not in many respects. Harm reduction is the goal, so more liberal laws are needed. I think legalising less additive or non-addictive drugs which could in turn prevent people from turning to highly addictive illegal drugs could be an option. Certainly decriminalising personal amounts is a start, as sending people to prison for personal drug possession causes far more harm than it prevents


Maybe not charging people for drug possession is only as far as the government should go. Also a campaign to try to make drugs socially unacceptable amongst people since peer pressure is a strong motivating force people try drugs in the first place, more then people using drugs to cope with stress or a hard life.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Some people would be willing to sell the drugs they buy to minors who might be willing to pay higher prices to get their hands on them. And due to a lack of any criminal consequences for drug possession this could cause drug use to go up which if it does could cause a different problem like what was going on in china long ago.


Rather than referring to a centuries old case, lets look at modern cases, which is that cannabis use hasn't increased in the states it's become legal, or in countries which have decriminalised personal amounts of drugs (such as Portugal) use hasn't gone up, so the evidence isn't on your side.

Of course there will still be some illegal activity, but nothing compared to what happens now where it's illegal.



> The terror and suffering you talk about I gather is the mexican cartels. But the cartels have been around for a long time and the killings didn't used to happen on the scale of today. It only spiked when the government changed.


Due to an increase in efforts on the war on drugs. It's no wonder Mexico are now also pushing for cannabis legalisation, as anything they can do to reduce the terror and suffering should be welcomed.



> Maybe not charging people for drug possession is only as far as the government should go.


Well I'm glad you can at least get behind not charging people for drug possession.



> Also a campaign to try to make drugs socially unacceptable amongst people since peer pressure is a strong motivating force people try drugs in the first place, more then people using drugs to cope with stress or a hard life.


That already happens with tobacco, but you'd need to include alcohol in a wider programme of trying to convince people drugs are socially unacceptable, since alcohol is the one which creates the most social harm and unacceptable behaviour. If such a campaign didn't it would just be seen as a double standard. I'm all for promoting the responsible use of all drugs (including alcohol) though. Responsible use and harm reduction should be the goals, since they aren't going anywhere and will remain as popular as ever with about half of society.


----------



## jimity

> Rather than referring to a centuries old case, lets look at modern cases, which is that cannabis use hasn't increased in the states it's become legal, or in countries which have decriminalised personal amounts of drugs (such as Portugal) use hasn't gone up, so the evidence isn't on your side.
> 
> Of course there will still be some illegal activity, but nothing compared to what happens now where it's illegal.


Maybe cannabis use hasn't gone up because a large portion of the population can get hold of it whether it's legal or not.

I'm not sure if opiates are sold in some countries like Portugal but I'm willing to bet that going one step further than just simply decriminalising drugs and actually selling them would create a different problem.



> Well I'm glad you can at least get behind not charging people for drug possession.


But drug trafficking and manufacturing should still remain illegal and perhaps even harsher sentencing for those activities.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Maybe cannabis use hasn't gone up because a large portion of the population can get hold of it whether it's legal or not.


That's the same for many drugs.


----------



## vela

Nope, it's just a game. Just because people believe it's more doesn't make it true.


----------



## JustThisGuy

It's proof that Hasbro made a lot of money off of people. Pulled a Blair Witch way back when, making people think it's a legit thing.


----------



## Fever Dream

JustThisGuy said:


> It's proof that Hasbro made a lot of money off of people. Pulled a Blair Witch way back when, making people think it's a legit thing.


:lol Pretty much this. Seriously, if there was a device that allowed dead people to text you, it wouldn't be sold in the toy aisle at Walmart for $19.99.


----------



## railcar82594

I would just stay away from them. I heard someone couldn't get rid of the sinister effects of it until it was burned which is the best way to get rid of them.


----------



## sprinter

^^^ The movie the Exorcist was based on a true story or I guess a book that was based on a true story. Anyway, the boy who was supposedly possessed had an aunt who was some kind of spiritualist or something and she taught him to use the Ouiji board and he was left alone with one a lot.


----------



## greentea33

I had a very old one I bought at an antique shop.

Witch board was an awesome 80s movie.

That was meant to be one word....but autocorrect keeps changing it to switchboard.


----------



## AngelClare

Stories like this are more difficult to explain away....











Good luck explaining that.


----------



## ugh1979

AngelClare said:


> Stories like this are more difficult to explain away....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck explaining that.


The policemen see the car accident so their minds are then primed for hearing things such as calls for help and undoubtedly some other noise makes them think they are hearing calls for help. Plus there is positive reinforcement/suggestion, when one person says they hear/see something and others in the group then interpret it in the same way.

Humans are well known to be highly fallacious at accurately perceiving such things and naturally trend towards hearing human speech or seeing human faces where there aren't any, _especially _when they are primed to such as in this case. It's called pareidolia.

There are very good evolutionary reasons humans are prone to making this mistake, since for most of our existence it was better to hear/see a human (or animal) and be wrong rather than not hear/see it at all.

These are well established human psychological tendencies.


----------



## millenniumman75

JustThisGuy said:


> It's proof that Hasbro made a lot of money off of people. Pulled a Blair Witch way back when, making people think it's a legit thing.


 You mean "Linda Blair" Witch. She got a bad deal because of that movie. She really seems like a nice person.



sprinter said:


> ^^^ The movie the Exorcist was based on a true story or I guess a book that was based on a true story. Anyway, the boy who was supposedly possessed had an aunt who was some kind of spiritualist or something and she taught him to use the Ouiji board and he was left alone with one a lot.


Yep. In the movie it was "Captain Howdy" a.k.a. Pazuzu.


----------



## AngelClare

ugh1979 said:


> These are well established human psychological tendencies.


This would be acceptable if it were just one of the rescuers who heard something. Here you have multiple people hearing the same thing at the same time.

Also, given the temperature and the position of the car, they wouldn't expect anyone to be alive. They wouldn't be primed to expect to hear anything.

I don't even believe in ghosts but I'm open minded. All I'm saying is this is much better evidence than a Ouija board.


----------



## ugh1979

AngelClare said:


> This would be acceptable if it were just one of the rescuers who heard something. Here you have multiple people hearing the same thing at the same time.


As usual, you don't read. I clearly mentioned positive reinforcement/suggestion, when one person says they hear/see something and others in the group then interpret it in the same way. This is well studied and established.



> Also, given the temperature and the position of the car, they wouldn't expect anyone to be alive. They wouldn't be primed to expect to hear anything.


How do you know they wouldn't expect to find anyone alive? The found a baby alive! That clearly indicates they had no idea when the crash happened. So, to the contrary, you are talking nonsense, and as I say, they would in fact have been highly primed for being on alert for signs of life. To try and deny this is just laughable. :roll



> I don't even believe in ghosts but I'm open minded. All I'm saying is this is much better evidence than a Ouija board.


Try being more open minded and informed about what psychiatrists (aka professionals) know about human behaviour rather than trying to promote and defend the typically ignorant lay position of some inane superstitious answer.


----------

