venomai

Good manip overall. I don't like the text much. I think the lighting is good (sets a nice mood) but the brightness/contrast could be bumped up slightly, everything is a bit muted right now. I prefer the original. This is a bit too stark, the original has a nicer flow and a better colour scheme.

From my experience there are a few major problems with this subculture. 1. They are promoting "ghetto lifestyle" as if it's something to idolize. It's not "cool" to be extremely poor and living in a neighbourhood infested with theft, drugs, prostitution and murder. 2. They are promoting "gang lifestyle". Even if they aren't acting as true gang members do, they are promoting the image of organized crime. A lot of them use/deal drugs, act tough and/or break the law simply to keep up their "gangsta" image. 3. They try their best to speak in low-class slang, even if they are extremely bright. A lot of them refuse to appear smart and/or studious because they are afraid it will damage their image. 4. It's a fashion disaster! :mrgreen: 5. A lot of them will grow up to become actual gang members. Many of the "gangsta" teenagers I know have already dealt with the law a number of times. If my kid was dressing up as an intimidating gang member, making "brap brap" noises to imitate shooting a gun at people, I would probably get him a shrink. :-k

Your joking right? No. :idea: Wikipedia is a fine source for research. Read the article.

The definition of "afterlife" has no mention of God or His presence. There are plenty of atheistic and polytheistic views on the afterlife which differ from your own opinions. If you're implying atheists can't appreciate life, you're mistaken. :)

Have you heard of creationism? Contrary to what your high school teachers may be telling you, Wikipedia is an extremely good source for information. ;) Research suggests Wikipedia is comparable to Encyclopaedia Britannica.[1] My apologies about the link; its arguments are weak and one-sided. Here is a more professional article. I don't necessarily agree with these arguments, I'm simply showing interpretations and contradictions which are often questioned by Bible critics. http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbi ... ctions.htm And therein lies the problem. The Bible is supposed to be inerrant (without error) and inspired by the omniscient God. If God is all-knowing, why do scientific and historic errors exist in the Bible? If God is all-knowing, why would he not know science and history? According to the Bible, this is exactly what Christianity is about. http://www.religionfacts.com/christiani ... igions.htm

It varies from place to place. In America, much of the Bible is seen as literal truth. Iceland, on the other hand, interprets the Bible in a more minimalist fashion. A 2007 poll shows that nearly 66% of Americans believe in Young Earth creationism (ie: God creating Earth and humans within the last 10,000 years). It also shows that 44% of Americans reject the theory of evolution.[1] A 2002 CIA estimate claims that over 76% of Americans are Christian (or a Christian branch/denomination).[2] Other countries have widely different interpretations of the Bible. A 2005 study shows that 80% of Icelanders accept evolution.[3] A 2004 CIA estimate shows that over 90% of Icelanders are Christian (or a Christian branch/denomination).[4] In ancient times, the Bible's writings were seen as literal truth by its followers. However, advancements in science tells us that the Bible might not be inerrant after all, and as a result there is a general decline in biblical maximalism. There are lots of literary symbols in The New Testament. There are also a lot of mistakes in The New Testament. Whenever the Bible's historical/scientific accuracy is questioned, people will bring up the topic of symbols, signs and variable interpretations. Take Genesis 1 (The Old Testament) for example: Day-Age creationism only appeared when science contradicted the Bible's writings. Many Christians feel that the Bible is without error. When errors are discovered by the scientific community, interpretations of the text need to change for the Bible to remain "inerrant".

By that logic we wouldn't be eating any vegetation, either. :-s Most of us aren't trying to destroy the world or it's inhabitants. Rather, we are farming various resources for our own personal benefit. Nothing more than cultural differences. Another example is with drugs: mods are iffy when they see topics on marijuana because TIF follows Western cultures. Marijuana isn't culturally accepted in a lot of Western cities.

I never said it should be illegal to deny the holocaust. I'm against censorship and I would like to see more freedom of speech. I don't deny the holocaust. All I stated was that there are a fair few individuals who deny the holocaust and that their denial can offend/insult others (especially when it's notable figures who deny the holocaust). We're on the same side... :roll: Let's try to get back on topic, though...

28% of Israel's Arabs deny Holocaust. There are approximately 1,413,500 Arabs citizens of Israel. Therefore, approximately 395,780 of Israel's Arabs deny the Holocaust. That's a lot of deniers considering we're only counting the small country of Israel.[1][2] It only takes one person to send an harmful and offending message.

Try telling a holocaust survivor (or anyone who has suffered from the holocaust) that they are lying; that it never happened. That statement alone would probably cause a great deal of psychological pain. Maybe one of the most insulting aspects is that this is a historian who is denying the holocaust. It would be very hard if people thought you were lying about the suffering you had to endure over the holocaust.

That's why I used the Ku Klux Klan as an example. Most members of the KKK acted on their beliefs and often ended up harming the races, religions and groups they were against. This is an extreme case of censorship and I don't agree with it. But he certainly did do harm to others in denying such atrocities, so I would consider it "over the line". Definitely not deserving of a jail sentence, though. :idea: It's interesting to note that the historian in question, David Irving, has changed his stance since '89 and no longer denies the holocaust.[1]

Here are a few more issues with the survey. 1. Forthcoming literally means "approaching" so question 2.6 doesn't make sense. 2. Al Gore says a lot of things about global warming... How can one possibly agree with all of his ideas, let alone remember all of them? And how does this relate to religion? 3. Why are you asking the speed of light? Is this related to religion or is it just there to lower one's self-esteem? 4. Science class? I'm not sure how this relates. However, a better question might be: "How far are you in your education, and what specialized science classes have you taken, if any?" You're survey is too vague and seems to be targeted towards the Christian religion. Christianity is known for having churches around the world, a monotheistic belief of God, a disbelief of natural evolution, and a notoriously adamant opinion on global warming (in that it is generally not caused by man). In reality, a different religion may have an entirely different set of beliefs and therefore warrants a different set of questions. Even Christian denominations may have different teachings on these subjects. Also, might I ask, why can we not post our results? I'd be interested to see what people have to say to these questions. :)

Just a quick correction... There are a lot of religious atheists (Buddhism is atheistic, for example). It is illogical to compare religion to atheism as if they are opposites. I think there are many cases in which it's valid to have an issue with sombody's beliefs, especially when they aim to degrade, discriminate or harm another individual. Take the Ku Klux Klan, for example. In my opinion, the line is where the belief/religion begins to negatively effect the believer or other individuals (either through physical or psychological damage).

I'm very sorry to hear about your unfortunate week. Thankfully nobody has gotten seriously injured from the dogs, or things would have been much worse for you and your family. I have a friend who was bitten by a dog at a wedding. An inch to the left and she would have been blind. Instead she was left with a large scar next to her eye. A lot of people die or get seriously injured from aggressive dogs every year. If a dog becomes aggressive I think the best choice is to put it down. Yes, it's a sad thought... :'(

What suspends the minds in the universe? Our deep and powerful thoughts are created and processed by the human brain. The brain needs to be in the proper environment to survive and requires constant attention. You can't simply suspend brains into space and expect them to work like they do on Earth. PS: Exploring your mind can be a lot of fun. I'm interested in experiencing an ego loss sometime in my life, either through meditation or through psychedelics. For more info; http://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.cgi?ID=2758

Theists (those who believe) Agnostic (those who aren't sure - fence sitters) Atheist (those who don't believe) This is a better definition of agnostic:

Jerks like this exist in every religion. You'd be stereotyping to say that all atheists act like jerks. There are many religions and beliefs that are atheistic. I'm an agnostic buddhist (Theravada sect is atheistic). It's still a great religion, with or without belief of God.

I got one yesterday, first time I've really tried solving it. Today I used online guides to help me through some of the tougher steps, and I've managed to solve it a couple times already. Practice makes perfect... :)

Hey folks. I'm back from vacation.. :) Glad to see this topic has picked up some momentum. In the news... Canada tokes at 4 times the wold average! http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/07/ ... ml?ref=rss Set usually refers to mindset, preparation, expectations, etc. Setting refers to area, time of day, lighting, surrounding environment (noises, smells, etc). You just need to find somewhere you're comfortable with. If you're "set" and you don't have any concerns before using drugs, you will have a better experience. In contrast, if you're uncomfortable or paranoid to begin with you may end up in a bad trip. If you're having a bad time while intoxicated it's always a good idea to change the setting. This may be anything from changing the music or lighting to going outdoors. Note: Most of set/setting stuff only concerns stronger hallucinogens like LSD or mushrooms. Hah, thanks, but I don't think your professors would appreciate it. :lol: I'm aware of my craving. But, that's all it is... a craving. Much like my chocolate craving. The only difference between my chocolate craving and my weed craving is that I don't crave weed every day. :) It goes something like that... But marijuana has a much longer list of negative effects. There are only a few roadside tests. Nothing like a breathalyser, they need to use blood tests to confirm marijuana. However, most of the time the smell or actions of the individual can give away intoxication. A number of studies have shown that driving stoned doesn't impair your driving.[1] Of course, it's all in moderation. Driving can be dangerous if you consume too much of anything. In any case, I wouldn't recommend driving under the influence of anything (even caffeine). Lots of things are potentially harmful to your body. Playing sports, driving a car, lifting heavy objects, Advil, etc. Potential for harm exists everywhere, you can't escape it. Be cautious but not paranoid. Choose your actions wisely and responsibly and just try to enjoy your life. When you eat good food, play a fun sport or have good sex with a partner your body naturally releases a drug (dopamine) and you enter a chemically induced state of mind for a short while. These activities always involve a certain risk, but you are in no way "trading your life in". Soft drugs tend to do even less bodily harm than the aforementioned activities, and often leave you in a much better chemically induced state of mind. Just a recap... Marijuana can kill. No overdose has ever been recorded, but many drug-induced deaths do occur every year from marijuana. My original post has an outline of marijuana-related deaths.

Sure, nobody doubts that she's well surpassed Shakespeare, Marquez, Hemingway etc. in terms of popularity and riches, but when it comes to writing ability she's considered by critics to be far worse. Her writing often lacks important literary devices such as foreshadowing, dramatic irony, paradox, etc. Artistically, it's a mess. Economically, it's a thing of beauty. She writes for entertainment reasons rather than artistic reasons. Entertainment sells, although it doesn't make you a better writer because of it. :)

Jeez... talk about skewed logic. A better way to look at "open minded" would be "open to different and new ideas". This doesn't mean you have to accept them, you just have to be "open" in the sense that you try your best to understand them. Some you may accept, and others you may not.

1. I spend less money per month on drugs than you spend on your World of Warcraft membership. :-s 2. Understandable. :) 3. Potheads are just stereotypes. Lots of normal, intelligent people smoke marijuana and use hallucinogens. They don't do it to be "cool". It's often used as a mind-expanding drug and can change your life in a positive manner. Drugs often allow you to enter a state of consciousness that you otherwise wouldn't be able to experience. Lots of responsible and intelligent drug users have to hide their use to the general public because they know that society currently doesn't approve (for whatever reason). 4. I guess you've never heard of a hospital... Drugs save lives every day. :-k 5. Fun game. :

There's a big difference between "naturally occurring" and "natural". Tobacco, psilocybin mushrooms and cannabis are all naturally occurring plants/fungi... But they are manufactured in non-natural conditions and are often sprayed with certain chemicals to increase their potency. I wouldn't consider a hundred planets in the basement of some sketchy guy's apartment, all being sprayed and lit up by man-made technology, a "natural" thing. Besides, many natural things are very dangerous, and many man-made things are very helpful. Nature is a really poor pro-drug argument. Yes, I've covered some of those problems in my OP (although, agreeably, I should have included more information). There's no doubt that smoking marijuana is harmful (from my research I consider it more harmful than LSD/psilocybin) and it has proven to damage the lungs. However, there has been no conclusive evidence linking it to lung cancer, and it is not thought to cause emphysema. One recent study shows that heavy and "long-term marijuana use was linked to lung problems including coughing, wheeze, chest tightness, and airflow obstruction."[1] As for mental illness, as you were saying, this is the real issue. I've outlined it in my original post. It's really hard to find conclusive evidence on the matter. For example, this recent article on CNN shows that "Marijuana may increase psychosis risk, analysis says". Then, in the article, they admit that: Which contradicts their original statements. :-k Personally, I think there is no doubt that psychosis is common in long-term and/or heavy users of marijuana. But I think many of the individuals struck by these illnesses have had a history (or a family history) of mental issues. I'm neither a heavy pot smoker nor am I mentally unhealthy (and my family has no history of mental illness). However, feel free to prove me wrong. I'm always on the search for more conclusive evidence on the subject. Physically, yes... But things can still be mentally addictive. The mind is a powerful thing. Those with "weak" minds (susceptible to illness), those with addictive personalities, or those with a history of illness are likely to encounter problems (often addiction) when smoking marijuana. Many people do get addicted to marijuana, and have to go to rehab and therapy. Your friend most likely has a non-addictive personality which allows him to easily quit. See my OP for details and sources. As I've said... Most of the addiction is mental, and it's very easy for some people to become mentally addicted. Although it's also entirely likely that the tobacco in your joints could have been a cause for your addiction. In North America, it's not too common to put tobacco in a joint. Lots of the stuff over here tends to be weaker -- we need more of it in each joint to compensate. A pothead is a self-identified stereotype who usually lacks motivation and was never very bright to begin with. The whole "smoking pot makes you dumb" is a stereotype. From your own observations we can conclude that, even though it's illegal, nothing is stopping the self-identified and stereotypical potheads at your school from smoking marijuana. If weed was legalized they would be the ones smoking more and doing worse at school. However, this doesn't the rest of society would be inclined to act like them. It's hard to believe, but there is an entire community of marijuana smokers who are extremely intellectual and who do very well at school, college and university. Banning alcohol would be pointless. Kids would still get alcohol, just like we're still getting marijuana. However, legalizing alcohol and marijuana at younger ages (take the Netherlands for example) releases the pressures involved with teen substance abuse and would, in the long run, reduce problems in youth. Source: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm

I wouldn't say it's easy to overdose on LSD, or on shrooms for that matter. It's very difficult to die solely on a LSD/shroom overdose, unless you are physically unhealthy before taking the drug. LSD Overdose: From page 459 of Clinical Management of Poisoning and Drug Overdosepage by Haddad Winchester. One person writes the following in response to the quote: http://www.lycaeum.org/drugs.old/synthe ... SD.od.html It's worth noting most blotter tabs contain 30 to 100 ug of LSD. Many users will trip with only one or two of these tabs. If you're getting "regular" strength tabs you'll need to drop about 500 to 750 tabs in a single sitting for it to be lethal. Here's what one writer has to say about LSD overdoses: The link also explains some LSD overdose cases. http://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.cgi?ID=220 Shrooms Overdose: This user's method isn't perfectly accurate, but since psilocybin's LD50 for humans is unknown, we have to estimate using rats. It does provide a good estimate, though. http://www.shroomery.org/9122/How-many- ... psilocybin Average dosage for a good trip is 2.5 g of dried mushrooms. http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/ ... dose.shtml It's all in moderation. Your body can only handle so much of one substance, especially something as powerful as a hallucinogenic drug. There have been a small number of cases where people have been seriously ill from massive doses of LSD/shrooms, and only one or two documented deaths from overdose.

Find your passion. Everybody has a passion... for some it's harder to find. I'd also suggest Buddhism, it may interest you and it can certainly open your mind to a variety of new concepts. Government and mass media have always been corrupt and one-sided. You should be happy that you aren't being manipulated by it. If you haven't already, take a look at Noam Chomsky's work. :) There is a whole community of people who feel the same as you, and they are all trying to do something about it. I bet you'd write a good book. :)