magnificent creatures

Psychedelics (Psychotropics; and their main "term" in the next sentence) are definitely interesting mind wise. As I have in my own profile, Psychoactive drugs are indeed ALL very interesting.

This can include something as mundane as Codeine all the way up to LSD. Quick Message: Cocaine and Heroine are the same "type" of drugs technically: i.e. changed perception, mood alteration, etc... But, these ARE very dangerous to play with, versus the reward you receive: the reward here being an expanded mind that has the ability to understand any information from the remembered mental states that are achieved at the height of the drugs half-life in the body. Typically, specifically with shrooms or Psilocybin, it will create a calm-well being, and positive affirmation after affect that will even defeat depression in certain cases. This has been researched in atleast two studies that I've seen, Bill also talks of yet another--yet, he didn't mention that there is a 1% chance, and it may actually be lower than that now with further testing, that a "bad trip" will occur causing the reverse, but luckily not lasting in a long-term manifestation like the "good-trips".

There are generally two ways your going to enlighten yourself. Drugs like Marijuana will give a "high". Hopefully, with a mental state induced called: euphoria. The euphoric effect will allow you to feel very much "mood-stabilized". If you were depressed euphoria can completely reverse it, which can cause problems as it may cause you to become "psychologically addicted" to it due too it's affect; especially if depressed and more-so if you have an addictive personality trait in your genes (if this were Cocaine it would most likely always lead to a downward spiral and death). This is how many people lose the addiction game with bad drugs like Cocaine and Heroine, or even the Codeine you're doctor prescribes you. Anyway, the Euphoria allows many people to reach a level of peace and comfort that they can't otherwise. The sheer change in the organization of how you synapses fire to give you perceptual information, memories, and your own thoughts--have changed from your normal state. You literally think different. But, when you start to think about what you're working on, the same ideas no longer come back as they did just before you started to use: they come back changed. This is where change happens, it's where inspiration can come from.

For drugs like acid it becomes even easier to understand why you may think much greater things. Once the drug works it starts linking many of your perceptual areas, with your thoughts together into one giant drawing board. Sometimes, most of the time your subconscious mind, specifically your dream center starts to play with you using random memory sequences or perceptual information. Then when it fully takes hold you leave Earth as you've known it, while the drug is in full affect (this is why usually friends get others to watch over them, lest you do something incredibly bad--this is also why you really shouldn't play with the scarier drugs). It's very easy to see where these great ideas come from now, as now you are walking in a dream that is semi-controlled and mostly not. It begins to add random merging patterns, what the overall goal of the mind is at this point most likely is just to link all the information together; like a new song with a DJ. But, the experience is a lot like a journey, sometimes without prodding you will literally walk into a room with the "treasure chest", or the game changing idea that you need.

What you truly get in the end is the ability to realize that the human body is grand, with the brain a magnificent structure, designed in simplicity, but able to grow to see past that simplicity, that structure, those people that never went and looked, and you see the men that can stand on the shoulders of giants. Those that push the envelope.

If it was me go for shrooms, acid, and marijuana. But, read up on each and every one first so you know what to expect and NOT what to do to jeopardize your life; lastly, this is ILLEGAL...). All of these type of drugs are able to create a very unique experience while active on your active brain. Hopefully, like may others in history you can act like a Psychoactive compound on our collective psyche, as many have before.

/long but hopefully informative
//they're still Illegal...
///edited for grammar

@NetRunner

"I'm always puzzled when people respond to a misunderstanding this way. When someone misunderstands me, I generally consider that a failure on my part to make myself understood.

For some reason, some people who debate me seem to think failing to make themselves understood means they've scored some sort of victory over me."

^Assine bullshit. I was pretty damn clear about my POV. When I fail to convey my message, I look back and admit it every single time--unless the person I am debating is an obvious troll. But when I am clear I don't need to feel like I made the mistake.

What chaps my ass is that you considered me so damned inept as to totally fuck up the whole premise of a simple-to-understand movie (American History X.) In fact, I would have had to get the whole concept backwards entirely--a truly magnificent feat of stupidity!

And the worst part? You did it unintentionally, which only makes things worse, because if you had done it on purpose at least I could have considered you just trolling. But accidentally? You honestly believed me that retarded, that monolithically brain damaged. Perhaps I am wrong, but have I ever interpreted your comments in such a manner? That even apparent concepts are lost on you?

You may think it overreacting but that isn't your choice to make. It's mine.

I am no longer mad--and I do understand where you were coming from, but know where I was coming from too.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^ex-jedi:
>> ^A10anis:
Hate isn't too strong a word to describe my feelings toward zoos.

I'm game. Why's that then?

If their captivity is for, say, a breeding programme, then that may be justified. But to keep them for us to gawk at is, to my mind, unnecessary and cruel. Animals, especially the larger ones like bears and big cats, can be seen rocking psychotically and displaying unnatural behaviour. We no longer condone circuses that use animals, and we shouldn't condone birds in cages (so cruel). I only ask, do we actually need zoos? If they purport to be for educational purposes, I would point to the wealth of brilliant, and beautiful, wild life documentaries out there, which show these magnificent creatures in their natural habitat.


Interesting article over here http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/zoos-good-or-bad.htm

Seems to be a bit of a mixed bag. Some animals like elephants do very badly in zoos, but they seem to be improving.

>> ^ex-jedi:

>> ^A10anis:
Hate isn't too strong a word to describe my feelings toward zoos.

I'm game. Why's that then?

If their captivity is for, say, a breeding programme, then that may be justified. But to keep them for us to gawk at is, to my mind, unnecessary and cruel. Animals, especially the larger ones like bears and big cats, can be seen rocking psychotically and displaying unnatural behaviour. We no longer condone circuses that use animals, and we shouldn't condone birds in cages (so cruel). I only ask, do we actually need zoos? If they purport to be for educational purposes, I would point to the wealth of brilliant, and beautiful, wild life documentaries out there, which show these magnificent creatures in their natural habitat.

Magnificent!

Fullscreen people--or you're missing out!

Thanks, magnificent you!

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
*doublepromote

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Deano:
I will say though that he's wrong to blithely dismiss the case for underlying truth. "So what" is not a reasonable response. IF it was a conspiracy born in the darkest hearts of the U.S government or some branch thereof, it would be the biggest story in modern times.

I don't think he's saying it wouldn't be a big story. I think he's saying given all the terrorism we commit around the world, this doesn't measure up and would be a mere footnote if it wasn't done to us. Because this was the one time terrorism went the other direction it's significant, other than that it wasn't really as huge of a deal as what we did to numerous countries during the 20th century.

So, America has regularly targeted civilians on purpose, and declared it a warning and magnificent act worthy of great praise?
I understood American wars and black ops to have killed a lot of civilians. I wasn't under the impression that there was wide spread practice of specifically singling out civilians for murder. Even the horrific boastful body counts of 'Nam and the carpet bombing of Cambodia had the flimsy pretense of evil done to prevent a greater evil. Which I add I condemn as one of the most evil acts done in recent history, but even that pales to what would be American officials deliberately killing everyone on 9/11 to get the policy changes they want.

Yes they deliberately ordered the attacks of "Soft Targets" in Honduras. Places like schools, hospitals, and churches but the rebel forces they trained and supported with arms. That's just one example...south and central america are littered with bodies that the US intentionally went after. Also Cambodia and Vietnam itself is a way greater crime than 9/11 ever could be. Estimates as high as 4 million dead...that's extreme.


Don't misunderstand me. I hold no argument that Cambodia and many other American atrocities were far greater crimes than 9/11.

What I am saying is from the view of an American President, killing a million people with aerial bombings in a foreign country during a war(declared or not) is one thing. Even if you did it in secret, when the secret comes out your administration might survive it by saying something about necessity. Killing 3000 American civilians, solely to trick the rest of America's civilians to support a war you want to start though, when that comes out it's worse. They are both crazy, but the important distinction is the later is also suicidal.

Which is Chomsky's point. America has done lots of horrible things, but being caught responsible for 9/11 would be far worse for the leader and party than pretty much anything in American history, ever.

9/11 may be a much lesser crime than Cambodia, but as far as picking one to be found out as responsible for, EVERY American politician will stand up and claim Cambodia as their choice before ever letting it be thought they were behind 9/11. At least Cambodia leaves the more acceptable lie of killing foreigners to protect Americans.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Deano:
I will say though that he's wrong to blithely dismiss the case for underlying truth. "So what" is not a reasonable response. IF it was a conspiracy born in the darkest hearts of the U.S government or some branch thereof, it would be the biggest story in modern times.

I don't think he's saying it wouldn't be a big story. I think he's saying given all the terrorism we commit around the world, this doesn't measure up and would be a mere footnote if it wasn't done to us. Because this was the one time terrorism went the other direction it's significant, other than that it wasn't really as huge of a deal as what we did to numerous countries during the 20th century.

So, America has regularly targeted civilians on purpose, and declared it a warning and magnificent act worthy of great praise?
I understood American wars and black ops to have killed a lot of civilians. I wasn't under the impression that there was wide spread practice of specifically singling out civilians for murder. Even the horrific boastful body counts of 'Nam and the carpet bombing of Cambodia had the flimsy pretense of evil done to prevent a greater evil. Which I add I condemn as one of the most evil acts done in recent history, but even that pales to what would be American officials deliberately killing everyone on 9/11 to get the policy changes they want.


Yes they deliberately ordered the attacks of "Soft Targets" in Honduras. Places like schools, hospitals, and churches but the rebel forces they trained and supported with arms. That's just one example...south and central america are littered with bodies that the US intentionally went after. Also Cambodia and Vietnam itself is a way greater crime than 9/11 ever could be. Estimates as high as 4 million dead...that's extreme.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Deano:
I will say though that he's wrong to blithely dismiss the case for underlying truth. "So what" is not a reasonable response. IF it was a conspiracy born in the darkest hearts of the U.S government or some branch thereof, it would be the biggest story in modern times.

I don't think he's saying it wouldn't be a big story. I think he's saying given all the terrorism we commit around the world, this doesn't measure up and would be a mere footnote if it wasn't done to us. Because this was the one time terrorism went the other direction it's significant, other than that it wasn't really as huge of a deal as what we did to numerous countries during the 20th century.


So, America has regularly targeted civilians on purpose, and declared it a warning and magnificent act worthy of great praise?

I understood American wars and black ops to have killed a lot of civilians. I wasn't under the impression that there was wide spread practice of specifically singling out civilians for murder. Even the horrific boastful body counts of 'Nam and the carpet bombing of Cambodia had the flimsy pretense of evil done to prevent a greater evil. Which I add I condemn as one of the most evil acts done in recent history, but even that pales to what would be American officials deliberately killing everyone on 9/11 to get the policy changes they want.

What magnificent tails!

But Sunshine was a crappy film, while Kick-Ass was awesome!
Also,, John Murphy redid the music for Kick-Ass, as you can hear that this version is different (in the small details) than the Sunshine one - at least the one you linked.
>> ^hpqp:

Argh, no! Sorry, but one of my pet peeves is giving musical credit to whom it's due in film scoring... Adagio in D Minor was first written by Underworld and John Murphy specifically for the OST of the magnificent and underrated film Sunshine by Danny Boyle.
It has since been "stolen" to score a myriad of other films/trailers/series (e.g. Kick-Ass, The Adjustment Bureau, Fringe, etc etc). It has a history akin to Clint Mansell's RFaD score; created with a specific film in mind, beautifully fitting, then reused for other films with mixed results. I love it when great music gets around, but I do find it a bizarre experience when I'm watching a film and all of a sudden the music of another comes on... kind of breaks the suspension of disbelief quite frankly.
/nerd rant
edit: "Super" > Kick-Ass (even though the latter was a fun watch too)
>> ^gwiz665:
Loved the music from Kick-Ass.

Argh, no! Sorry, but one of my pet peeves is giving musical credit to whom it's due in film scoring... Adagio in D Minor was first written by Underworld and John Murphy specifically for the OST of the magnificent and underrated film Sunshine by Danny Boyle.

It has since been "stolen" to score a myriad of other films/trailers/series (e.g. Kick-Ass, The Adjustment Bureau, Fringe, etc etc). It has a history akin to Clint Mansell's RFaD score; created with a specific film in mind, beautifully fitting, then reused for other films with mixed results. I love it when great music gets around, but I do find it a bizarre experience when I'm watching a film and all of a sudden the music of another comes on... kind of breaks the suspension of disbelief quite frankly.
/nerd rant

edit: "Super" > Kick-Ass (even though the latter was a fun watch too)

>> ^gwiz665:

Loved the music from Kick-Ass.

http://videosift.com/video/Star-Wars-The-Phantom-Menace-Review
Redlettermedia sums up quite nicely how the fucker ruins this magnificent piece of history fiction.

Bravo my friend... you are indeed a magnificent troll.