Chris, Below$$$$$$$$$ Natalia All mail scanned by NAV ----- Original Message ----- From: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 6:06 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: Projection makes perception
| Natalia, | the Freudian dishonesty and diversions of your debating style make it | difficult to have a constructive discussion. For example: $$$$$$ I do not consciously follow any particular debating style, nor would I wish to hide behind or be limited to any of same. Most rules in debate are designed to ultimately declare a winner. Not my intent, though I notice time and again how frustrated, evasive and judgmental you become when you think you can't "win", then react to say that the other party isn't following the rules. Well, this illustrates that you feel every discussion on futurework is about debate rather than exchange. This new attack on my alleged "Freudian dishonesty and diversions of debating style" is also classic projection, for it is you who diverts to distract. The White House could use a guy like you, but for the fact that you'd have to be doing it consciously. $$$$$When you speak of Freudian dishonesty, I take it you mean your newly sloganized version of Freud's dishonesty regarding drugs, which would have little to do with what most other people know about his professional miscalculations. The latter are far more interesting and revealing, but leave that for when, if ever, you decide to pursue psychology at least at the level of dilettente$$$$$ | | > | > or people who are in favour of decriminalizing a societal problem? | > | | > | Problems can't be decriminalized, only solved or aggravated. | > | Decriminalizing drugs aggravates the "societal problem" of drug use. | > | (The problem of drug mugging can be solved with the controlled provision | > | of drugs in detox programs.) | > | > *****Controlled provision applies to hard drugs. The societal problem is | > not the drug use, the drug use is a manifestation of the societal problem | > of depression/oppression. | | First, you talked about "decriminalizing a societal problem", when the | issue was decriminalization of drugs. After I explained that problems | can't be decriminalized, you suddenly assert that the societal problem | is depression/oppression. So you want to decriminalize depression/ | oppression. You just don't make sense. Perhaps you had too much drugs? $$$$$$ I decided to reproduce this part of the discussion so that it is seen in its entirety. Your tendency is to pick out key items that you think may help people forget what was actually being discussed so that the conversation goes only to your court. Not only is it unfair, it is highly manipulative of both observer and other party involved. My ****'s from previous post. | ****** You are the one who is redesigning the concept of decriminalization. The idea behind it is to avoid ruining the lives of mostly youngsters who could end up in prison for years for what is usually soft drug use, as opposed to dealing, and as a result of their sentence end up damaged for life--because that is usually what happens to youth who are raped by other inmates regularly and also isolated from society. These types of prisoners make up about 25% of inmates, whereas real perpetrators who have raped, killed, peddled kiddy porn, embezelled people of millions, etc. get a slap on the wrist even for repeat crimes, and are released to make room for the pot smokers. The repeat offenders keep offending, but hey, those evil little pot smokers are locked up from themselves****** $$$$$$$$ Note: no relevant reponse from Chris on the purpose of the decriminalization program proposed. An attempt at semantics critique, perhaps, but chiefly a slight on my character, the same ac! cusation which is getting tiresome in its presumptiousness, and done purposefully to elicite an angry response. This is, however Chris' "style" of "debating". I have asserted many times before that the use of drugs is a manifestation of a societal problem. Nothing sudden about the remark. $$$$$$$ | | > or people who are in favour of decriminalizing a societal problem? | | Problems can't be decriminalized, only solved or aggravated. | Decriminalizing drugs aggravates the "societal problem" of drug use. | (The problem of drug mugging can be solved with the controlled provision | of drugs in detox programs.) *****Controlled provision applies to hard drugs. The societal problem is not the drug use, the drug use is a manifestation of the societal problem of depression/oppression. Which is why people drink alcohol too. ****** But again, you don't seem to be making recommendations for detox for the majority of earth's citizens such as controlled provision of vodka or beer. Why not, Chris? Do you have more respect for aggression? Or are you worried about societal or peer group rejection by such a stance? Are you really unaware of the spousal assaults that occur as a result of alcohol? It's like 70%! And the rape of children? It is an extremely aggressive drug, that creates killers behind a car wheel, and costs society billions in medical and labour costs. But for some reason, you're unwilling to make that "rational" assessment of the users of that substance which acts upon the same part of the brain as heroin--in other words extremely addictive! *****$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Note: No response to this relevant issue on addiction$$$$$$$ | | Murder is a societal problem -- do you want to decriminalize it to solve it? | ******Pot smokers aren't killing people Aggression addicts are. The comparison is pathetically lame. Further, murder is much allowed, by the way, by virtue of legal alcohol use, medicalization and iatrigenic incidents, army enlistment, etc.**** $$$$$$$$$ Note: absolutely no comment on this relevant reply.$$$$$$$$$$ | | > As to Freud, your own extreme fear of drug addiction inspires in you what | | Even if you want to decriminalize *symptoms* of depression/oppression, | this doesn't solve the underlying problem at all -- it even compounds it. | That is why the U$ "war on drugs" is not honest. | | Your umpteenth strawmen about alcohol misuse and the U$ "war on drugs" | make just as little sense. | | For example, your rhetorical question about the controlled provision of | alcoholic beverages. Where's the problem? There would simply be no | alcoholic beverages available in the shops, restaurants etc., and anyone | who can't be without alcohol is outing themselves as alcohol addicts, | so will receive the benefit of a rehab treatment. $$$$$$$$$$ Not a rhetorical question. Please consult dictionary. It is a question to you that you utterly fail to respond to, yet is highly related because you war on drugs and addiction. Alcohol is the widest spead and legal drug in the world, and you ask "Where's the problem?" when I cite several that you could address if you had the overview. But your focus is myopicly centred on the smallest addiction group around. $$$$$$$$$Prohibition in the early thirties in America didn't work. The practical carrying out of prohibition/criminalization of alcohol and its consumption/possession is unfeasable because of the majority numbers that partake in its consumption/distribution both legally and illegally. Everyone would be in jail, including the jailers. Who would help them through detox? But more to the point, with all alcohol and drugs gone, diets changed for the better, would you wipe out family violence? Not by more than a degree point or two. Would you wipe out societal/political/domestic oppression that is the root cause of aggression, depression and mental illness? Not even a point's worth. People were violent/depressed/oppressed through the bygone ages of healthier soil and water, healthier diets, fewer drugs, stronger families. Aggression, by the way, is still apparent in your allegedly cleansed system. How do you account for it? $$$$$$$The more busts they make on drugs, the more aggressively dealers step up development of new drugs, a la ecstacy--statistically exponentially more harmful, and easier to produce. There will always be a market for drugs as long as there are domestic abuses and societal oppression. People search out escape in the only place they can really feel free--in their minds. Better diets make a body to feel better, and the mind a little sharper, but they do not address this overwhelming cry. $$$$$$$$ | | Btw, the largest Swiss retail chain sells no alcohol and no tobacco | products at all, and offers smoke-free restaurants nation-wide. | It doesn't seem to go out of business... $$$$$$$ Not new over here. And we have lots of all organic produce and restaurants too. | | Your complaint about druggies filling the jails just makes my point. | In a society that uses a genuine, preventive approach against drugs, | that wouldn't happen. $$$$$$$$Chris, what is this great plan of yours? You've been holding back. We have educational school programs here. I've participated in retail programs of this nature. How is yours so different? If anything, this approach "is to avoid ruining | the lives of mostly youngsters", whereas further drug legalization | would ruin their lives even more. Your silence to my question of | "what could be worse than that" (booming drug use among youth) is | quite telling. $$$$$$$ Silence was an obvious. I disagree that with respect to decriminalization of soft drugs, if enacted, it would result in the ruin of mostly youngsters. I have more concern for hard drug use and proliferation. And I also disagree with your opinion that pot smoking leads to harsher drugs. Instead, you complain that I am "the one who is | redesigning the concept of decriminalization." Well, obviously | it's high time to redesign it. | | You didn't get my comparison with legalizing murder at all. | The point was that a problem cannot be solved by legalizing it -- | that would only make it worse i.e. more widespread. $$$$$$ I disagree with respect o soft drugs. Must you insist on disputing and insulting my view point?If you do, I am forced to ask you the hard questions which you cannot seem to respond to--like what about all the legal murder that's out there--like army enlistment? | | Your dishonesty continues in denying that you asserted that drugs | enhance mental abilities. What else can the term "drug-inspired works" | mean? This means that drugs inspired the person to create works they | couldn't have created without drugs. You keep ignoring that at least | in the long run, drugs reduce mental abilities, and addicts soon have | too many problems with addiction in itself to be able to think of | creative activities, or even function in daily life. Instead of | praising "drug-inspired" music, how about considering what music | would have been possible in a drug-free, best-nourished world? $$$$$$$$$ Hey, Chris, tell us what kind of music we should listen to. Give us names so we can know we're listening to pure creativity as opposed to the evil kind that comes out of "decadent culture". $$$$$$$$$ I said drug inspired, and I meant what I said. I did not say creativity is derived from drugs. They are a vehicle at the bodily level that effect on mental state by effecting pleasure centres (releasing dopamine) to the brain. Musicians, artists the world over both drink and do drugs of all types. They use drugs to relax by, to help them to focus on their craft/art, they have fun doing it and once again they are searching for freedom within the mind to reach that creative thought that they are unable to access when straight, or relaxation to pursue other realms of thought. Just because you condemn it does not negate that these people have genuinely interesting experiences, in spite of the bodily impairment of lung damage and what not. I realize some artists do not partake, but they are few compared to the number who do. As to their functioning, these people continue to pump out good tunes forever it seems, as long as they don't go down the hard drug scene. They hav! e chauffers to drive them around, thank God. They have scads of creativity to tap because they do not own it, it simply is, and as to getting old, everyone does. In spite of your dietary regime, the vigorous exercise, you too will begin to demise. In fact, too much exercize like cycling and dancing (as I did) will definitely set you up for bodily compromise. I suspect the people mentioned above will have had way more fun, and will have lived creatively too. | | | > But you haven't actually delved into psychology, and are rushing to | > bring in "help" by citing expert opinions--a telltale sign that your | > arguments need outside support--yet you are not providing any expert | > arguments that deny Freud's important place in the field. You're | > trying to bluff your way out****** | | Nonsense. I cited experts because you wanted to dismiss my position as | an exotic/layman view. $$$$$$ Not one expert was mentioned. Check dictionary for meaning of exotic. You have often declared that psychology is psycho babble and also that meditation is crap. Why should I consider that you have read up on anything to do with mind beyond the brain?$$$$$$$$ | | As for books on nutrition, well you may have read them but you didn't | seem to draw the right conclusions from them. Maybe drugs stood in the way. | | $$$$$$$ By right, that must mean Chris' conclusions. I agre with some of your findings and disagree with others. And again, the irresistable goading and presumptuous remark at the end. Hallmark of your debating "Style"$$$$$$$$$ | > *******Chris, you're pugnacious as hell, rarely speak but to criticize, | > and I've yet to hear you compliment anyone.**** | | Compliments are boring and add no information. The bad state of affairs | can only be improved with criticism, not with compliments. $$$$$$$$$Does this mean that you can't enjoy a meaningful as opposed to manipulative compliment? I used to be the same way. Didn't know how to deal with them. It's because growing up I had a steady domestic diet of criticism. Compliments drew attention to myself as an individual worthy of validation. Which to someone who gets a steady "diet" of criticism is utterly confusing. Thank heavens for the compliments that got me to question the restrictive self-framing that had developed. $$$$$$$$ I disagree with "the bad state of affairs can only be improved with criticism" bit, and though it has its application in the political arena, on a personal level, to which I was referring, criticism is highly destructive Particularly self-criticism. $$$$$$$$ Perhaps you've read this poem? CHILDREN LEARN WHAT THEY LIVE by Dorothy Law Nolte If a child lives with criticism, He learns to condemn. If a child lives with hostility, He learns to fight. If a child lives with ridicule, He learns to be shy. If a child lives with shame, He learns to feel guilty. If a child lives with tolerance, He learns to be patient. If a child lives with encouragement, He learns confidence. If a child lives with praise, He learns to appreciate. If a child lives with fairness, He learns justice. If a child lives with security, He learns to have faith. If a child lives with approval, He learns to like himself. If a child lives with acceptance and friendship, He learns to find love in the world. $$$$$$$Natalia$$$$$$$ | | Chris | | | | | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword | "igve". | | | _______________________________________________ | Futurework mailing list | [email protected] | http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
