search results matching tag: unsafe

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (44)     Sift Talk (4)     Blogs (2)     Comments (272)   

Why it Probably Wasn’t Better Being Single

enoch says...

ah,the days of being in a relationship with a woman,who loved painkilllers with her jug wine.

who would wake me up in the dead of the night,using the super heated metal tops of a bic lighter on the bottom of my feet (those are called "smileys" for those who do not know) to scream at me about some girl who had the audacity to look my way at target,because 3:30am is the time to find out if i am having sexual thoughts about random women.

or an earlier girlfriend whose father was a prominent artist in the country and was holding a weekend jazz festival.i had a customer who had cerebal palsy,and one leg had been amputated,whose boyfriend had just broke up with her and she was a wreck.

so i had this bright idea! why doesn't this poor emotional wreck of a woman come to the jazz festival of my girlfriends dad? that will get her mind off things right?

but,having a second person accompany made me a little late.so when i finally showed up,my girlfriend was already half in the bag,and mad.i tried to explain and introduce her to mary,the heartbroken girl.

and my girlfriend broke my nose with a bottle of michelob.i do not think she cared that mary was heart broken,and an utter wreck in need of human company.i could be wrong,this is just a guess,but the bleeding from my broken nose may have been a strong indicator.

or how about the time i was counseling a long time friend,who had pulled a midnight move out to escape a man who had basically had her trapped in a spare room,chaining her to the wall.that man had gone as far as severing her achilles tendons,after her first attempt to escape,and this woman suffered from a severe case of PTSD.

now she did form an almost childlike bond to me.maybe because i had offered her the first taste of true compassion,and offered her safety and comfort,and allowed her to talk the poison and bile out that had been building inside her for over three years.

but her attachment to me,which was to be expected,was not viewed favorably by my girlfriend.i spent a lot of time and attention in drawing this broken and damaged young woman to feel safe,and to begin to feel human again(which infuriated my girlfriend).my patio was always filled with friends,artists and people of interest,and i did my best to bring a normalcy to this young womans life in order to help her acclimate,and to feel human again.

and my girlfriend would come home,get drunk,and start to whisper the most vile.and disgusting things..not about this young woman,but about me.

which,of course,if you understand the mentality of an abuse victim.especially one who had suffered such as she had.any criticism,or perceived threat to the person who had (in their mind) saved them,will create incredible anger and anxiety.

so because of my girlfriends irrational jealousy of this woman,and in her drunken selfishness,she went out of her way to make this woman feel as uncomfortable,and as unsafe (the exact opposite of what i was trying to do).so much so that the young woman...who didn't want to be a burden,or affect my life in a negative way...left my home,and wrote me she would never come back,because she loved me and didnt want to cause problems.

two weeks later she was found dead in motel room.over dose of piankiller and xanax...and wrists slashed to ribbons.

or how about the time one of my girlfriends broke three of my ribs,because i was being kind to a waitress?

or the time another girlfriend stabbed me,because while she was unhappy with our relationship,she could not abide me talking to anyone who owned a vagina.in this case a fellow artist i was collaborating with,and who happened to be not only an amazing human being but beautiful as well.

or that one time,when i broke up with a girl,because it simply was not working out and she repeatedly rammed her ford fairmont station wagon into my brand new firebird?

oh..the stories i can tell about all my wonderful relationships,and the women i have shared portions of my life with.i could write a book...

and then i watch this video,and i am overcome with an urge to drive cross country to the creators home,walk inside,grab him by the ankles and crag him outsides....and beat him senseless.

because he is coming from a false premise.
he is implying the that the benefits of relationships outweigh he selective memory our brains create when reliving our moments of singlehood.

when the reality is this:as long as you have friends,who love and accept you for who you are,you are never actually single.you are surrounded and loved by an extended family.

i do not need a girlfriend.
i do not want a girlfriend.
i am not interested in getting married.
and as i have revealed here,i would prefer some memories to remain buried under the much happier and adoring memories of my actual friends who put up with my eccentricities,and my overall oddness,rather than deal with a woman who is smitten with the ideas fed to them by institutions,and periodicals such as comsopolitian and vogue.

though,ironically,i have two ex girlfriends living in my home as i write this.
one is a former porn star,and current stripper who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia,and is a recovering addict.

while the other i had to go do a midnight rescue from a place where she was renting a room,but the house was junkie house,and she is a recovering addict as well (and they also kept stealing everything from her).she has bought a house,but it needs work and that work is taking fooooooorever.

and BOTH of these women still harbor some residual feelings towards me.even though i have been quite clear,open and honest that i have ZERO interest in rekindling anything,with either of them,but that hasn't stopped them from being all catty with each other,and causing drama,and complaining about the smallest,tiniest and most ridiculous of things to bitch about.

at first i tried to play referee.
i did my best to help everyone get along,until i realized they both had no interest in getting along.they wanted to outdo the other in order to get my attention.

which is just.....dumb..but anyways,my new way of handling their insipid complaints is always this response:i don't care.

and it seems to work beautifully.

so there you have my story,or at least part of it.
and i have to say...this guy is kinda full of shit.

for those of you happily married,with a great partner,i salute you.good for you,and i mean that.

but for me?
no thanks.i am good.

Is this a negligent or accidental discharge of a gun?

harlequinn says...

Lol. Lebowski.

I'm studying mechanical engineering (hons) with masters in biomedical engineering. It's a head fuck. I don't think anyone offers firearm design as a major itself.

The trigger finger is the primary safety (debatable), and there is usually a secondary safety and sometimes a tertiary safety. It's true that not having it is different than removing it but sometimes they are redundant. For example the palm safety (a tertiary safety on most guns) is often pinned to turn it off permanently because it didn't add any real benefit.

The particular gun in question looks like a CZ-75. A little hunting in the Youtube comments and other people agree. This particular model originally had a firing pin block which was eventually removed on later models (that have the same internals) because it wasn't needed (probably because they also have a thumb safety). This allowed for the short reset disconnector to be put in place (which is a factory part). So CZ ships two lines of the same gun - one with the firing pin block and one without. You're not suddenly unsafe if you remove it from the model that has it. With the quality of the video the way it is though, it could end up being another gun entirely.

Yes, x-ray diffraction is not the only method. It was an example only. The point being that your average gun owner and gunsmiths don't use these sorts of techniques as regular preventative maintenance. And they don't need to, guns are cheap and replacement parts are cheap. If something breaks you replace it. Some parts are replaced on a maintenance schedule (springs spring to mind). Most people never fire enough rounds through their firearms to need to replace anything.

Factory condition firearms malfunctioning is not rare. Factory condition firearms self firing is quite rare. But several model firearms have been affected over the years (meaning millions of firearms). But usually the problem is with a small batch of firearms from within those millions but they always do a blanket recall.

I agree, unintentional firing of a gun is almost always user error.

I still don't believe their is enough information from the video and accompanying text to make a judgment call on this guy.

newtboy said:

That's just, like, your opinion, man. ;-) I wouldn't rely on that position to help in court.

If you're really studying firearm design, you surely know different safety devices are on different firearms. Not having a certain device is different from inexpertly removing one.

Xray inspection isn't the only method, there's dpi (dye penetrant inspection) , magnetic particle, ultrasonic, eddy current testing, etc. I would be surprised to find a competent gunsmith that had never done at least one of those...I've done it for car parts in my garage, cheaply and easily.

How many videos would I find of well maintained factory condition firearms malfunctioning and discharging? I would expect that to be quite rare.

Thanks to safety features and decent quality control, unintentionally discharging is almost always user error, not malfunction, with rare exceptions like you mentioned. In this case it seems to be malfunction, both of the aftermarket part unprofessionally installed and the safety feature he removed that may have stopped the discharge even with the original failure. Imo, that's negligence, whether it in fact caused the discharge or not, because it made it far more likely to unintentionally discharge.

Is this a negligent or accidental discharge of a gun?

harlequinn says...

That's not true either. Following their directions doesn't mean you won't be negligent. Not following their direction doesn't mean you are negligent. You're conflating things. Each situation needs to be judged on it's own merits.

Removing safety features is not negligence unless you make the firearm unsafe. None of my firearms have a firing pin block from the factory. They're all safe firearms. My triggers have been lightened - they're still safe firearms. I've seen triggers lightened so much that they are unsafe. As before, each instance is judged on it's own merits.

I'll soon finish my mechanical engineering degree (and don't you know it, I'm looking for a job in firearm designing), so I do know a little about this stuff. Whilst with the proper equipment you can detect crack propagation or premature wear, this is not done on consumer products like firearms. That's why I wrote "this sort of item". Unless you're going to spend more money than the firearm is worth trying to detect cracks, you won't know it has cracked until you visually identify it.

Sure proper cleaning and gun inspection is part of having a safe, well functioning firearm. But don't fool yourself into thinking it's an aeroplane or space shuttle in inspections. Go ask your local gunsmith - the best one you can find - how many times he's done x-ray diffraction on a firearm for preventative maintenance. Chances are he's going to say zero.

Spend 5 seconds on google and I know you will find multiple videos of factory condition firearms discharging unintentionally. You'll also find recall information affecting millions of firearms - firearms at risk of unintentional discharge.

I should have qualified "much". More or less than 2500 rounds a year?

newtboy said:

You're only obliged to follow directions if you don't want to be negligent.
No injury does not mean no negligence. Not following safety instructions is negligent, as is removing safety features, why you do it or the fact that others are also negligent does not erase the negligence.
You can certainly identify wear patterns and or cracks before this type of discharge occurs in 99.9999999% of cases. Proper cleaning and inspections are part of gun safety.
Not lately, but in the past, yes. I've never seen an unmodified gun fire unintentionally, but I have seen poorly modified guns 'misfire' on many occasions.

Avatar Style Mech

spawnflagger says...

I change my vote from Fake Camp to Real Camp.

I guess it's not that unsafe (proximity to workstations) since it's tethered to the ceiling. They would have to make a serious "back cage" before they un-tether this model - if it fell down it would destroy all those control boards on its back. Also would have to beef up safety in the drivers cockpit (not that I'd ever sign up to be a beta mech driver)

spawnflagger said:

I agree it looks fake. Upvoted for amount of effort that went into creating the fake

Comcast Repairmen Unconcerned Of Wrecks They Are Causing

newtboy says...

I think your expectations would not be met. You're forgetting that AT LEAST 1/4 of Americans are 'mentally challenged', expecting them as a group to drive rationally or with caution versus wrecking will lead to accidents 100% of the time.
Even doing the right thing and putting warning of work ahead before the crest wouldn't stop all the accidents, but it would put the fault 100% on the stupid drivers rather than share it with them.
Because they were unsafe, so at least partly at fault, they'll probably just pay for the cars and injuries rather than taking their chances and spending far more fighting them in court.

Payback said:

Actually, on a snow covered road like that, I would expect people to be going somewhat under the speed limit, in an obvious family neighborhood, over a blind hill. The people also don't know how to drive and/or have improper tires.

Also someone said to move the cones himself, which is against the law.

The smart play would have a "men at work" sign at least at the crest of the hill, but if that's not in the regulations, that's not the unpleasant Comcast guy's responsibility.

>250000000 Gal. Of Radioactive Water In Fl. Drinking Water

newtboy says...

Agreed, the levels matter....that said, 10 m^2 is quite a lot, while 1kg of water is 1 liter. Multiply by 3.785, then again by over 250000000...that's what they've admitted was dumped into the drinking water. Let's say for discussions sake that it's diluted to 1/10 that strength...so every 10 liters of water you drink is equivalent to breathing 10 m^2 with unsafe levels of radon....now think about how many liters an orange tree uses per day. They're going to have to do continuous independent testing with believable results to make me feel safe eating or drinking anything from Florida from now on. It could take years for the contamination to surface...aquifers are convoluted.

bcglorf said:

Important to have an actual measure of radioactivity. There's a pretty wide spread between banana level and chernobyl level.

I haven't been able to find a number for this exact plant, but the same process in Idaho listed here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734242X05800217

This article states the highest radioactivity concentration from at 1780 Bq/kg primarily from Radon.

For reference, the potassium in Bananas makes them radioactive with a concentration of 82 Bq/Kg. So from that perspective, it's 20 times more radioactive than that same amount of Banana pulp.

I'm not sure how to directly translate, but the American standard for Radon in basements is set as being lower than 150 Bq/m^3. So your typical basement already is deemed acceptable when every 10 m^3 of basement air holds as much radioactive radon as a kg of the waste being discussed. The acceptable basement standard unquestionably takes up a much larger space, but it's mass would drastically less. I'm not an expert, but from that it almost sounds like a coin toss to whether breathing air at the highest threshold or drinking this stuff undiluted is worse for you in the long haul.

"The Political News Media Lost Its Mind"

bobknight33 says...


\

Published on Apr 14, 2016

The aerobatics skills of Russian pilots over the US destroyer Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea left the Pentagon and other US official running for cover in Washington over “aggressive close interactions” with Russian fighters jets.
Trends
Russia-NATO relations
Releasing the footage of Russian jet flybys in the vicinity of the destroyer, the US Navy said that its vessel has encountered multiple “aggressive flight maneuvers ...within close proximity of the ship,” some as close as 30 feet (10 meters) on Monday and Tuesday.

The set of incidents took place as the US ship, which had sailed from the Polish port of Gdynia, was conducting exercises with its NATO ally Poland in the Baltic Sea. The Navy announced that the SU-24 first flew over Donald Cook on Monday as US sailors were rehearsing “deck landing drills with an allied [Polish] military helicopter”. The numerous close-range, low altitude encounters were witnessed at 3:00pm local time, forcing the commander of the ship to suspend helicopter refueling on the deck until the Russian jets departed the area.

The next day, the Navy said, Russia caused concern among US sailors when a Russian KA-27 Helix helicopter flew seven times over the ship at low altitude in international waters at around 5:00pm. Some 40 minutes later, two Russian SU-24 jets allegedly made a further 11 “close-range and low altitude passes”.

“The Russian aircraft flew in a simulated attack profile and failed to respond to repeated safety advisories in both English and Russian. USS Donald Cook’s commanding officer deemed several of these maneuvers as unsafe and unprofessional,” the Navy said.

Judging by the videos released by the US Navy, the sailors were nonplussed by the Russian aerobatic skills. They gathered on the top deck of the destroyer to watch the Russian pilots.

“He is on the deck below the bridge lane...It looks like he’ll be coming in across the flight deck, coming in low, bridge wing level...Over the bow, right turn, over the bow...” the voiceover on the footage states in what looks more like an instructor’s advice on how to maneuver in open waters, rather than the panic that the central command presented it to be. At least on the video no one can be seen running for cover.

According to a US defense official who spoke with Defense News, sailors aboard the Donald Cook claimed that the Russian jets’ low altitude stirred waters and created wake underneath the ship. US personnel on the American vessels, also claimed that Su-24 was “wings clean,” meaning no armaments were present on the Russian jets that could have posed a threat to US operations in the Baltic.

Yet at the same time, the official noted, that this week's incidents are “more aggressive than anything we’ve seen in some time,” as the SU-24 appeared to be flying in a “simulated attack profile.”

The Russian overflights have caused panic over in Washington, with White House spokesman Josh Earnest calling the actions of the Russian pilots “provocative” and “inconsistent with professional norms of militaries.”

“I hear the Russians are up to their old tricks again in the EUCOM [US European Command] AOR [area of responsibility],” Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman Col. Steve Warren said during a briefing on Wednesday, adding that the US is “concerned with this behavior.”

“We have deep concerns about the unsafe and unprofessional Russian flight maneuvers. These actions have the potential to unnecessarily escalate tensions between countries, and could result in a miscalculation or accident that could cause serious injury or death,” the US European Command said in a statement.

In the meantime Adm. John Richardson, the chief of naval operations, thanked the US crew for keeping their cool during the stressful situation.

“Bravo Zulu to the crew of USS Donald Cook for their initiative and toughness in how they handled themselves during this incident,” the admiral said on Facebook.

Russia has yet to comment on the incidents but most likely the Russian air craft flew from the Kaliningrad region, bordering Poland. Kaliningrad is the headquarters of the Russian Baltic Fleet, which also includes the Chernyakhovsk, Donskoye, and Kaliningrad Chkalovsk air bases.

Description Credits: Russia Today

Video Credits: Defense Media Activity - Navy

heropsycho said:

I had no idea the enemy had such amazing pilots who repeatedly can fly within 10 ft of boats in the water repeatedly.

Tell us more!

Why you shouldn’t drive slowly in the left lane

shinyblurry says...

The biggest problem on the road of course are hyper-aggresive drivers who are always breaking the speed limit. They are constantly creating unsafe situations by forcing people to go one lane or another by tailgating them until they move out of the way. I would be happy if everyone stuck to one lane but that would require everyone to stick to the speed limit. The reasonable driver is often caught in the middle between slow drivers and hyper aggressive drivers.

Shit.....Fucking Fuck...Fuck

coolhund says...

Well, she surely wouldnt have been unsafer.

And ChaosEngine posting his bullshit again. Too bad guns stop guns from firing. Even nuclear missiles stop nuclear missiles from firing.

notarobot said:

Maybe she would have felt safer if she had a gun in the car. Then she could get out and start shooting herself.

If everyone has a gun, then everyone is safer. Right?

At least that's what the NRA tells me....

Unarmed Man Laying On Ground With Hands in Air Shot

newtboy says...

Yes, and that's why I display such contempt and distrust of them.

As I understood it, yes, 3 pairs of cuffs, all 3 attached to his wrists, not a chain of 3 pairs to make him comfortable. I mean, why is he cuffed at all? WTF?!? He's not 500lbs, the only time they use more than one pair in a chain is when the perps hands can't fit behind their back, NEVER for comfort....that's simply not what cuffs are about...EVER.

Yes, this level of 'incompetence' (if that's what it was, and I don't concede that) MUST be intentional. It falls so far below the bar we have set as reasonable, or the standards that police MUST meet through testing, that the only way it could actually be his incompetence rather than intentional negligence is if his supervisor intentionally falsified his test results to keep him on the force....so it's either HIS intentional negligence or his supervisors, but either way, it's intentional. No question in my mind that SOMEONE along the chain of responsibility intentionally allowed this behavior...or this level of incompetence that it's clear would lead to this behavior. There was intentional negligence, no way around it.

It actually seems to indicate a lack of a reason for shooting in the first place to me.

I've seen a dozen videos about this. Numerous times they mentioned an over 15 minute wait before he was seen by medics, during which time they had him handcuffed, bleeding in the street, but not charged with any crime or even suspected of one....why the cuffs?

I think that there is a point where negligence is SO intentional, and the results of that negligence SO foreseeable that it's indirect intent. Cops shoot to kill...period. If they shoot inappropriately, like at someone not posing a threat, that's attempted murder IMO. Period. They intend to kill, it's not accidental. Wounding him was accidental and clearly incompetence, which should be another charge IMO, unsafe discharge of a weapon...at least twice for those times he missed completely....and attempted murder 3 times.

(Side note...how in the hell do you miss from that close with a rifle?!? That, as much as anything else, should have people up in arms, that an officer is so non-proficient with his weapon, but still allowed to carry and use it. WTF?!? I want every officer with a firearm to be reasonably proficient with it...really any person with one, but that's another discussion. Police have to train, and prove proficiency with their weapon....how can this possibly happen without intentional skirting of the standards/rules/law?)

The biggest problem IMO is there's rarely any justice at all, even in those cases where there's incontrovertible evidence of guilt. Instant justice would be nice, but delayed justice would be FAR preferable to no justice, which is the current situation. How many recent killings of unarmed men have gone completely unaddressed? Far too many to count.
The system is set up in such a way that those charged with prosecuting police have personal and professional relationships with them that deny impartiality in almost every case. That is why there's rarely any prosecution, and even when there is (usually because they are pressured into it by public outcry) they blatantly throw the case in the toilet with no consequence....and there's still no justice.

Barbar said:

Absolutely the officer should be charged. I think it's a huge disservice to everybody that these things are so often dealt with behind closed doors. It breeds contempt and distrust, and it eliminates an important opportunity for the public to understand some of the issues inherent in policing, and it seems to let horrible crimes go largely unaddressed.

But 'triple cuffed' can only mean a daisy chain of cuffs. Nothing else makes any sense, and to do so means that they are making some kind of attempt to accommodate the comfort of the individual during the cuffing. Or do you think it means having 3 sets of hand cuffs individually applied to your wrists? Come on... Doesn't excuse the cuffing of the guy, obviously, but thinking that triple cuffing is some heinous extreme version of cuffing is absurd.

You acknowledge that he had bad aim, and that the majority of shots missed the intended target, whichever target that was. You acknowledge that poor leadership, training, and protocol may have contributed to this outcome, but then you make the leap that because these this incompetency, it must have been intentional. It simply doesn't follow. You might ask them to be held responsible, but it doesn't mean it was the intent.

Saying 'I don't know' in the immediate aftermath of a charged situation where you are just coming to realize you made a huge mistake and nearly killed an innocent seems reasonable. It does not mean 'I meant to kill you and missed." It seems to indicate a state of confusion or shock.

I heard absolutely no reference to any time frame, or them preventing medical assistance for more than 15 minutes. I'll just remain agnostic on that angle.

I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought that intent combined with action was the very core of attempted murder. Murder is all about intent, and attempted is all about action. Attempted manslaughter of some degree seems the most realistic charge to make, but that's up to people that better know the law, and are willing to spend hundreds of hours analyzing the situation.

A huge problem with the system is the way that justice is delayed for so long (assuming it is ever meted out). People want instant karma, immediate redress for wrongs committed. People see something, get heated, and feel that a strong reaction is called for in the moment. The system on the other hand is meant to be about dispassionate discussion of the details of the situation, and can take a long time to play out. This is a big part of why it seems so reprehensible when it's carried out behind closed doors; it looks like it's being swept under the carpet. Similarly this is why media coverage over sensationalizes crime. But that's a discussion for another day.

Anyways, I've already typed too much about this I think.

Vantablack can make a flat disk of aluminium float on water

ForgedReality says...

Okay first off, powdercoating is different. It's a powder that is closer to glass than paint, and it's cured in an oven which melts it onto the surface. Vantablack is grown on a surface and they recommend it is never used in an application where skin contact is involved as it would be unsafe. The sprayable paint version uses another form of carbon nanotubes in a different structure, which is considered "safer," but there's not enough data on it for me to trust it. They also make no mention of it being "sealed" as you claim.

You can if you want. Lead paint was once considered safe, as was asbestos, and aspartame, and cigarettes (at least publicly). Go for it. But we won't agree.

newtboy said:

Try looking up powder coating...it's WAY stronger and tougher than paint, which is also highly toxic and chips off far easier. I'm not certain the Vantablack nanotubes are applied that way, but I'm certain that your hypothesis that powder coatings are not as tough or as sealed as paint is wrong.

You gonna let your baby suck on paint chips? Did your parents let you? ;-)

Yes, I don't disagree that in powder form nanotubes can get into everything and may be toxic....but in a sealed coating, they are not loose. Be afraid if you wish, but your fear is misplaced IMO. The only one's in danger of breathing the powder are factory workers.

Vantablack can make a flat disk of aluminium float on water

ForgedReality says...

I really doubt this would be considered safe enough to put into something for consumer production like a cell phone. It's made of carbon nanotubes. Those get into the air, and it's very, very toxic to breathe. It is like needles stabbing and slicing through your cellular membranes. There are some real concerns about the long-term safety of CNT. I would feel very unsafe having to work with it every day.

newtboy said:

I think some of the new waterproof phones might be using the coatings as one level of protection against water intrusion. Anything in a marine environment could also benefit.

This is what a ZERO star-rated car looks like in a test

Jinx says...

The A pillar looks like it is made of drink straws.

Its an interesting ethical quandary. If they were to incorporate all the safety options the western world requires by law then that could price people out of owning a car. One might also argue that those same western countries "tolerated" unsafe cars for years and years before airbags and seat-belts were even invented, never mind the standard.

Tailgater vs Brake Checker

dannym3141 says...

@MilkmanDan I remain unconvinced that it's even 0.00001% anyone's fault but the tailgater. If they smashed into someone after driving unsafely, that's still their fault. I don't know about brake check laws, but i was under the impression that you are allowed to brake if you think there is a need to, and who can say why they felt the need to? Anything can happen - are we assuming here? Perhaps we should not assume things when driving except that people will behave within the law. Any assumption beyond that means you're not driving safely (in my opinion).

@SDGundamX I think it's tragic and dangerous that you have to take into consideration being shot at when you make driving decisions. Does that now mean we have to drive dangerously at certain times in order to avoid being shot?

Psyched Substance - DMT+MDMA

newtboy says...

Again?
It seems that doing DMT makes EVERYTHING about DMT for you for the remainder of your life, and makes DMT the only topic that interests you. That alone is enough reason to avoid it, forget the myriad of other reasons it's unsafe.
These never ending, repeated, constant 'DMT is great, you should all do it' videos have worn me down to the point that I'm struggling to not downvote them on principle alone, and I no longer watch them.
So much for DMT expanding your mind, from the outside, it seems to have quite effectively narrowed your mind to a single topic.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon