nope not at all. d**** arent good or bad. they just exist and can be either. which if youre realy a doctor, you woudl know. I dont know why you think i think, some neutral thing is good or bad or has no downsides.

You were the one that’s brought up how if somebody is spiked with d**** and go into psychosis, they deserve preferential treatment than somebody who did d**** voluntarily, which is putting morality on d**** use, at the expense of their treatment and health. not me.

and I knew this is the angle you would go lol.

there are theories that describe the effects of certain d**** as a temporary psychosis. absolutely. im not disputing that. but the “psychosis” these d**** produce, is different than the psychosis people go through thats triggered by them, or that’s triggered by somethign else. and yes there are edge cases where that line gets blurry, its not a marker of intelligence to point that out. but that is what it is

like my position on d**** is from a harm reduction perspective, so people who use them can minimize the harm they can cause, because they can be so dangerous. It’s like you deliberatly misunderstand the things i say about it.

tbh if you read what Im really saying about them, instead of just me shooting jokes, theres no way the conclusion you should get is, this person thinks d**** are always good. loi

they are so dangerous and can ruin so many lives. But the approach society has towards them and the morality attached, just makes the dangerous parts of them worse.

It’s about purposeful intent. If you kill someone while you’re on d**** you took on purpose, you’re liable. I’m not sure how this is a difficult concept to understand.

If somebody d***ged you against your will and you don’t have capacity to make decisions due to being intoxicated, you are not liable. It’s really not a hard concept.

the difference is very clear. It’s not a hard concept

nobody intends to go into psychosis. so there no purposeful intent in either situation. assuming the person who killed the person, had a psychotic break, and werent just on d****. there is a fairly clear distinction, despite there being edge cases.

Guys I know the cover art is actually very wocky, but the music is good

Nobody intends to doesn’t cut it. Drunk drivers don’t intend to run someone over either. You know the risks of what you’re getting into. You chose to do d**** in a situation where you put someone else at risk.

where this a***ogy falls apart, is because the odds of going into psychosis is so low and so many other regular behaviours everyones goes through, also can cause it.

So you would have to, using that logic, apply it to the multitude of other causes. like someone who pulled an all nighter and had a psychotic break. or somebody who had a psychotic break from alcohol. these were also things that can cause psychosis. so by your logic we should deny them treatment as well if they become violent.
but if somebody went into psychosis from grief, which is arguably unavoidable, then you would treat them?

drinking and driving, has a very high chance of causing damage.
the decision of someone taking mushrooms or smoking a joint, is infinitely less likely to not only cause a psychotic break, but a violent one.

and regardless of all of this, even if you wanted to pin the blame of psychosis on somebody because you think taking d**** is immoral, the treatment for the medical condition, is the same. its immoral to deny them that and a danger to the other prisoners to not put them in a ward

@Extraterrestrial like if you had a full blown psychotic break from hitting your pen, and hurt somebody, you think thats grounds to deny you treatment?

Stop bickering

Warning 1

yes im out i dont think et is arguing in good faith and has turned the topic into d**** when the conversation was on how to treat paranoid psychosis

plus et could be completely wrong about something and no mater what you say he wont be like oh you changed my mind, or oh i never thought about ti like that. he jsut changes the topic to something else to argue about that instead. so its not like theres any benefit to engaging with it.

while i DO actually change my views when people bring up something and admit im wrong about stuff all the time

Nirosta said it wasnt him btw . We are back

Oh theres walls of text this is not good…

W i guess

but i mean does that really change anything lol, he can just say its not him. Im curious what evidence there is that is was him, which there doesnt seem to be much, even if it was

nah its fine nobody is mad or calling names or anything. jsut talking about foolishness

Yes usually im seperate the art from the artist but when it comes to pedophiles i cant. Like rkellys victims said he told them most of his songs are about them. I cant enjoy a love song dedicated to kids . My brain doesnt let me seperate it

i agree. like sometimes i can. say picasso married a like 16 year old or something. but i still love his artwork even if he was a terrible person.

seinfeld dated that 17 year old in the 90s, but his comedy isnt connected to that so it doesnt bother me.

nirosta steele music is very sexual, talks about boys at pools, theres a*** s***on the vinyl artwork. its a gay, sexual record. so you cant really seperate them, since the song would hypothetically be about kids or whatever, which is horrific.

I also think it’s common for people to call gay people pedos or assume that they are. and that probably plays a role in this too

Really annoying night at work

Its not crowded

But Its because they are just filling up the parking lot and slowly coming in so it's like constant

Hope they all get cancer or murdered

i dont listen to durk or von’s music unless theyre a random feature on an album or something, because I dont wanna listen to music about literally killing people, you literally killed. that is deeply disturbing to me

and the reason its so popular and socially acceptable is because his victims were black and people dont empathize with black death, like white death. and people festishize the situation he lives in.

not that people shoudlnt make art about their real life and real situations. but his artwork should be treated as essentially a murderer rapping and singing about, largely, the people he murdered. its very jaaring and sad, The place is holds in pop culture is very innapropraite.

this is beautiful spice

what mountain is tat do you know?

rainier