Yes, you're ignored, and I read your comment anyway.

No, in saying "use drugs," I was not "implying cannabis." I said "use drugs" because I meant "use drugs." Rather than trying to interpret or 'read into' what I'm saying, it might help if you responded to my post, and not what you post in your mind on my behalf.

And I will take you up on your 'challenge:' below is a list of ten "highly intelligent" people who have used cocaine (note: at no point did I say "encourages the use of cocaine." I said "use drugs" without becoming addicted, and being able to function), so that you can provide me with 10,000 more** whose lives and families have been destroyed by it. (**And note here, we're talking about individuals whose lives were destroyed by the use of cocaine itself, and not by the pointless drug laws that imprison people for having a mental or emotional condition that provokes "self-medication" as a form of treatment. Nor are we talking about the illegal status of cocaine which, itself, gives rise to violent cartels that function in the shadow of its legal status.)

So, while certainly many of the following list of "highly intelligent" (non-cognitively deficient) and successful "celebrities" may no longer be using cocaine, all of the following have used cocaine and are/were not addicted and function(ed) just fine:

Sigmund Freud
Thomas Edison
Oprah Winfrey
Stephen King
Tim Allen
Hunter S. Thompson
Angelina Jolie
Robert Louis Stevenson
Steven Tyler
Robert Downey, Jr.

There are others (like William Burroughs, Eric Clapton, Grover Cleveland, David Crosby, Arthur Conan Doyle, Isadora Duncan, Ulysses S Grant, Abbie Hoffman, Elton John, King George V, Larry Kudlow, Sir Paul McCartney, & Barack Obama), but I thought I'd stop at 10.

And if you post the 10,000 names of those whose lives and families were destroyed by cocaine (and not by the pointless drug laws or its illegal status) by the end of the week, I'll take your point.

"everytime i attempted to quantify love i end up describing sex" -sigmund freud

love is that thing in-between,the glue that holds the intangible together.

and yes..i am a romantic.

Wait, was that parody? Is what she does in porn considered EXTREME parody? Like the human condition magnified? God, she looks like my mom when she was young. Is that her thing? She's our mom, our sister, all of our ex's. Sigmund help meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

No, don't help me. You were a nut.

God the arguments I've seen against Gay Marriage lately have been astounding. One guy was trying to make the case that Sigmund Freud said it wasn't normal therefore it shouldn't be considered normal. That was just one there were...sooo many people throwing out random so called "facts" and trying to argue that this should be looked at in a scientific way and that we shouldn't change things for 3.5% of the population...I don't know where they get that number I don't think they do either.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-unconstitutional/2012/02/07/gIQAMNwkwQ_story.html

There check out the FIRST Comment at that link. It's mindboggling that these people fucking exist and have gone through college learning only how to pretend like they have a good argument and valid points. This sort of delusion is gonna totally fuck America up.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'religion, atheism, history, science, skeptic' to 'religion, atheism, skeptic, thomas paine, richard carlisle, sigmund freud' - edited by xxovercastxx

I had a dream about this movie once...

Oceanic Flight 815, en route to Earth 2, crash lands on a desert planet infested with giant sand worms and zombies. In an attempt to get home, the survivors encounter Jeffrey Sinclair on board a space station caught in a time rift, who reveals that he has been chasing Q who is commanding an army of half-Scarran, half-Sylons with Goa'uld symbiotes to conquer a magical island in Neverland. And the only one who can save the universe is Jim Raynor, captain of a stolen Firefly, and his life partner, a half Wookie, half Time Lord who has sworn a life debt to the captain. They have a depressed robot sex slave who isn't attracted to them and each of them owns a power ring, bestowed to them by the Guardians of the Universe (who are all dwarves, except for one of them who is Tom Waits).

You don't even want to know who the crew of the Firefly is. It will blow your fucking mind. Ok, I'll tell you: Napoleon, Socrates, Sigmund Fruuud, Billy the Kid, Genghis Kahn, and Ludwig Van; then for some reason Whoopie Goldberg is there with William Shatner, Patrick Stewart, and Malcolm McDowell, who can't stop pining over Beethoven. At the end of the movie, the crew is clean cut, the robots are all shiny, and the ghosts of Bill Hicks, Rufus, Obi-wan, Pizza the Hut, Dr. Frankenfurter, and Alf are all sitting around waiting for you to wake up -- but, when you wake up -- you're Homer Simpson! OMG don't tell ANYONE about the twist ending or the sequel where he meets Hank Hill who gets abducted by aliens and meets spooky Fox Mulder and that sexy redhead Leeloo.

My mind is exploding! There may be another me who isn't as awesome as the real me and enjoyed the movie The Notebook... Pshhhhhh -- Frell the frack off. Every alternate reality of me smokes pot and makes or plays video games. Stop trying to change me, universe!

An Oral fixation is a fixation in the oral stage of development manifested by an obsession with stimulating the mouth (oral) first described by Sigmund Freud, who thought infants are naturally and adaptively in an oral stage, but if weaned too early or too late, may fail to resolve the conflicts of this stage and develop a maladaptive oral fixation. In later life, these people may constantly "hunger" for activities involving the mouth.

A child who is not fed enough (neglected) or is fed too much (over-protected) may become orally fixated as an adult. It is believed that fixation in the oral stage may have one of two effects. If the child was underfed or neglected, he/she may become orally dependent and obsessed with achieving the oral stimulation of which he was deprived, learning to manipulate others to fulfill his needs rather than maturing to independence. The overly indulged child may resist growing up and try to return to that state of dependency through crying, acting helpless, demanding satisfaction, and being "needy."

Oral fixations are considered to contribute to over-eating, being overly talkative, smoking addictions, overindulging in sugar, chewing on straws and toothpicks, and even alcoholism (known as "oral dependent" qualities). Other symptoms include a sarcastic or "biting" personality (known as "oral sadistic" qualities). Some suggest a link between oral fixation with oral sex where individuals fulfill their oral gratifications through phallic and ejaculant sensations. Another indicator is constant nail biting, putting fingers in the mouth as well as biting any future sexual partners they may have.

Via Wiki knowit all Pedia.com

Because SOMEONE wanted to be Obtuse about it...

" The Oedipus complex, in psychoanalytic theory, is a group of largely unconscious (dynamically repressed) ideas and feelings which concentrate on the desire to possess the parent of the opposite sex and eliminate the parent of the same sex.[1][2] According to classical psychoanalytic theory, the complex appears during the so-called "oedipal phase" of libidinal and ego development; i.e. between the ages of three and five years, though oedipal manifestation may be detected earlier.[3][4]

The complex is named after Greek mythical character Oedipus, who (albeit unknowingly) kills his father, Laius and marries his mother, Jocasta. According to Sigmund Freud, the Oedipus complex is a common phenomenon, built in phylogenetically, and is responsible for much unconscious guilt. The Oedipus complex, as Freud put it:
“ His destiny moves us only because it might have been ours – because the oracle laid the same curse upon us before our birth as upon him. It is the fate of all of us, perhaps, to direct our first sexual impulse towards our mother and our first hatred and our first murderous wish against our father. Our dreams convince us that this is so.[5] ”

Classical theory considers the successful resolution of the Oedipus complex to be developmentally desirable, the key to the development of sexual roles and identity. Freud posited that boys and girls resolved the conflicts differently as a result of the male's castration anxiety (caused by oedipal rivalry with the father) and the female's penis envy. He also held that the unsuccessful resolution of the Oedipus complex could result in neurosis, paedophilia, and homosexuality.

Classical theory holds that "resolution" of the Oedipus complex takes place through identification with the parent of the same sex and (partial) temporary renunciation of the parent of the opposite sex; the opposite-sex parent is then "rediscovered" as the growing person's adult sexual object.

In classical theory, people who are fixated at the oedipal level are "mother-fixated" or "father-fixated", and reveal this by choosing sexual partners who are discernible surrogates for their parent(s)."

>> ^dannym3141:
Forget it longde - i'm metaphorically moving to the front of the bus.
I couldn't disagree more really with you dystopian. I am glad this idiot got his ass kicked for initiating a physical fight with someone.
I know i'm not a racist, i have absolutely no racism in my body, i have never let slip a racist epithet in anger or anything else. I can watch this video and form my opinions without questioning myself or vetting myself for racism - because i'm flat out not racist.
I think if you are worried that you formed an opinion based on race, you're contributing to problems with racism. Think about it - if you have to stop yourself and question yourself before you form an opinion about this dispute between 2 differently coloured people, are you really treating people different to you as an equal? Because you wouldn't do that if you were talking to say, your father. If you change how you act to someone because they're different, it isn't a good thing.
I've said it before, i'll say it again:
Challenging ourselves to stop our racism is OF COURSE a good thing, but racism will not be truly gone until it's not even an issue to consider to us anymore. For me, there is no issue to consider - i watch this video as one PERSON starting a fight with another PERSON and getting ass-kicked. The colour of their skin is just an identifying feature to me, like hair colour.
I actually feel slightly sorry for anyone that has to vet themselves for fear of accidentally being racist. I can't imagine how difficult it must be, i've never had to even remotely consider it. It stems right back to my primary school upbringing when i was about 4 or 5 years old. Back then, having someone with a different skin colour in your class was rare, but we had the only jamaican girl in the entire school in our class. 15 years later, i discovered that there was some racism that took place, and i was absolutely horrified and amazed - not only did i never see it, but it never even occured to me that she was in any way different to me.


Note: I downvoted your comment when it was just a lame response to longe, before you tacked on your response to my comment.

I know little about you, other than the fact that you don't seem very smart, so I'm not going to 'prejudge' your internal racial attitudes.

However, there are some clues here.

Your responses to other people on this subject have been highly emotional.
You are generally very defensive on the subject of race.
In your comment to longe, you self identify with the white combatant.
You've admitted that you think personal introspection on the subject of race is 'part of the problem'.

I'm no psychologist, but it doesn't take Sigmund Freud to tell you that there are probably some issues here.

Thinking is ALWAYS a good thing, regardless of the subject, and whomever taught you to turn off your brain when it comes to matters of race did you a grave disservice. As I said above in my comment to chilaxe, our minds are subjective by nature, which means that many of the things we understand to be true in this world just flat out aren't. Without critical thought, those misconceptions just stay up there, building strength with each new year of rationalization and self-deception.

In short: Your brain is your friend, so use it.

I'm sorry to put you in a metaphorical amberlamps, but you did fuck with me. (just kidding)

Reference include:
KISS
Patty Hearst
MAD Magazine
Jimmy Carter
Sonny & Cher
Fonzie
Polaroid Instant Cameras
Baseball cards
Comic books
Billy Jack
David Cassidy
Donny & Marie
Farrah Fawcett
Burt Reynolds
Danny Bonaduce
Monsters Magazine (no info )
Star Wars Two
Studio 54
Jaws
Jimmie Walker
Richard Nixon
Sigmund and the Sea Monsters
The Incredible Hulk
ERA
Rev. Charles Mahaney
70's Gas Crisis
Smiley Face
The Six Million Dollar Man
Kent State Shootings
Shaun Cassidy
Freddie Prinze
Richard Pryor
American Bandstand
Evel Knievel
Cheech & Chong
Steve Martin
Animal House
Charlie's Angels


There are some I'm missing...mainly at 1:12 (on the TV and to the side)

Is it just me or does crosswords like horns and spikes on his creatures? You know what Sigmund Freud says about men who are obsessed with horns right?

Hey saw this comment of yours, just wanted to make a few points..

I can understand your concern for political misuse of scientific ideas, its been known to happen, and in some cases that phenotype is a mushroom cloud, nonetheless, Dawkins, the way I see it, only gives his opinion on whats actually true, not what we "should" do. My point is that lets say we one day settle it all, and it turns out that we are 100% "survival machine" genetically driven survival robots, well? If its actually true, should we just keep denying it? Personally, I dont think its that black and white. Our genes steer and control us probably alot more that we'd comfortably admit, but just the fact that we are here, thinking about it..

Just consider the very last 2 sentences in "The Selfish Gene" (which is a wonderful book IMO, and not necessarily what you read from the title):

"We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
"A crude analogy can be found in the old saw about a chicken being just an egg's way of making more eggs. In a similar inversion, Dawkins describes biological organisms as "vehicles" or survival machines, with genes as the "replicators" that create these organisms as a means of acquiring resources and copying themselves. At the level of organisms, we can see genes as being for some feature that might benefit the organism, but at the level of genes, the sole implicit purpose is to benefit themselves. A related concept here is the extended phenotype, in which the consequences of the genes to the environment outside the organism are considered."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfish_gene

These ideas then lead into a social framework for systematic population control in a free market society. Using game theory and the ideas of Sigmund Freud to appeal to our irrational emotions. Am not saying Dawkin's specifically believes that humans are far more controlled by their genes then their own individual selfs, but it's not hard to draw parallels how varying scientific ideas are misused for other purposes.

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Trap-What-Happened-to-Our-Dreams-of-Freedom-Part-1

gluonium: If you are implying that this video, which is part of a series called "The Question of God", is indicative of a bias towards religious programming on PBS, then you are mistaken. The series is born out of a seminar taught by Harvard psychiatrist Armand Nicholi and examines the lives of both C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud, the latter being a committed atheist.

nibiyabi: Technically speaking, atheism is a position that posits the non-existence of God. Claiming that something absolutely does not exist is difficult to defend, since it supposes that we have complete knowledge of everything that exists. The de facto atheism, instead, is a position that claims the existence of God is unworthy of belief, either due to a lack of any convincing evidence or to the seemingly intractable problems that supposedly entail from a commitment to the belief in God's existence.

Such a position is not inconsistent with an attitude of anger towards God, since it may just be the idea of God that the atheist might find repulsive.

"A crude analogy can be found in the old saw about a chicken being just an egg's way of making more eggs. In a similar inversion, Dawkins describes biological organisms as "vehicles" or survival machines, with genes as the "replicators" that create these organisms as a means of acquiring resources and copying themselves. At the level of organisms, we can see genes as being for some feature that might benefit the organism, but at the level of genes, the sole implicit purpose is to benefit themselves. A related concept here is the extended phenotype, in which the consequences of the genes to the environment outside the organism are considered."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfish_gene

These ideas then lead into a social framework for systematic population control in a free market society. Using game theory and the ideas of Sigmund Freud to appeal to our irrational emotions. Am not saying Dawkin's specifically believes that humans are far more controlled by their genes then their own individual selfs, but it's not hard to draw parallels how varying scientific ideas are misused for other purposes.

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Trap-What-Happened-to-Our-Dreams-of-Freedom-Part-1

Operation PBSUCCESS was the name of the CIA covert action.

"From Episode Two of the film series "The Century of the Self" by Adam Curtis. The nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays started his business life as a publicist. While still in his twenties, he was part of the propaganda effort that drove the United States into in World War I (WW I.)

He personally advised several US presidents starting with Woodrow Wilson and counseled numerous corporations and business associations. Hitler's propaganda chief and Nazi henchman Joseph Goebbels was a reader and fan of Bernay's writing in particular Bernay's book "Crystalizing Public Opinion."

In this short excerpt from Curtis's film we see one example of Bernays at work.

Bernays was one of the engineers of the Cold War. He perfected the technique of manufacturing a distant but ever-threatening enemy and then creating a constant state of fear by generating false news reports that endlessly re-stated and exagerated the threat.

The stated purpose of Bernay's methods was to give those in power greater control over what he called "the mass mind." It worked well in the 1950s and sadly, it appears to be working quite well today... but maybe not forever."