chilli

Just don;t get rats, the little fuckers are so personable and then they die so quickly, it's heartbreaking.

WIth one of these: Hopefully you flush the toilet regularly, and don't just let your turds pile up in there all week. By far the worst job is picking up the dog's shit, she sure pumps out a lot of poop. There sure are a crap load of words for number twos aren't there?

Okay so 21 October or 18 November for the next meet? Let's try to make it a good one and keep the momentum up!

Only if you use poor quality litter or don't change it often. We use silicate crystals, change it twice a week and scoop out turds in between so there is no smell and no poo being tramped through the house on cat feet (important because of T. gondii, especially now that my wife is pregant) 'Animals are crapping in our houses and we have to pick it up! Did we lose a war?' — Homer Simpson There is nothing cruel about it, we have a big house and a cat kingdom that touches the ceiling. I often have to persuade them to go outside, and when they do they are often out there half the day (or night—one of the boys is a real hunter and prefers to sit out there at night to catch crickets, which I turn a blind eye to) Our three cats are very happy and healthy and have already far outlived most outdoor cats, although one of the boys we picked up as a stray had a health scare last year, but is recovering nicely after $10,000 worth of care at the vet. Also, I don't need to constantly stomp on the heads of lizards and birds they have tormented for hours like I used to, or scrape a bloody twitching mess of a mangled cat off the road like I have had to do in the past. What is cruel is letting an animal roam free to maim and kill wildlife insidcriminately, get infested with parasites, and then die young, which the majority of outdoor cats do. By your logic here, it would be cruel to keep a dog (not to mention a lion) from freely roaming the streets. Do you think that is okay? Of course it is not cruel, it is being responsible for your pet by taking care of it properly and minimizing the harm it can cause to itself and other animals.

If you are going to let them out unrestricted at all, from my understanding they actually kill a lot less native wildlife like birds and lizards at night, and just eat rats and stuff instead. Kenny Echidna's advice notwithstanding: Gotta get to bed, rest my weary head Gotta brush my teeth, and there's prayers to be said Put away the toys in the old toy box Bring in the cat, snap on the locks

Because I have issues with trust and poor boundaries probably. See, I am doing it again!

You are probably right whitewind, I am getting worried I may get my first warn point now! My first post was innocuous and intended to be helpful and Psylo responded by insulting me. When I explained why my post was on topic, Psylo then brought up off-topic matters of a personal nature to mock me (I shared with him on chat that I had abusive parents who abandoned us). Actually Psylo does that kind of thing a lot, all I did was respond in kind.

On the bestiality issue, I think it is a tasteless thing to say and I completely support full rights and equality for LGBT people. However, is there actually a logical point there? If an animal is not being coerced, couldn't the acceptance of bestaility be argued for on similar grounds that the acceptance of homosexuality is?

It could be representative SYNeR, depending on how the sample was selected. nabraxas, I thought the Liberal party didn't allow their members a conscience vote, so they all had to vote against, in line with party policy, even though some of them may have personally felt differently.

Going by the way this has been handled overseas, even in the unlikely event the law was modified to allow for religious use, it will be for a specific religion and not just one you made up when you dropped LSD. What I mean is, even in countries where laws like this have passed it has been for actual members of a recognized religion, so is that the kind of thing we are talking about, or just some kind of general idea of religious use? It seems like such wishful thinking that you would get off on a drug charge because you said 'well it was for spiritual purposes'. I can see why members of the Native American church and Santo Daime are afforded these privileges from a political perspective, but I can't see how that principle is going to work with the Community of Infinite Colour.

We keep our cats inside, and let them out in a secure part of the yard on a long lead and harness most days. It is better for native fauna and much safer for the cat. Maybe an idea to try if you do get another one.

I think it is sad that you actually wrote that. I see Greg getting a lot of support, even from those who disagree with him. I also do not see anyone trying to stop him from doing things, let alone everyone. The very mild flaming on this thread was dying down and differences were being resolved before chnt, spaceboy and now you stirred things up again, defending Greg against imaginary enemies.

That is your error: I don't care if you think I'm condescending. I don't care what you think at all and don't plan to engage with you any further because all I have seen from you so far is pompous, vacuous trolling. Maybe you are well meaning and genuine, and just a little confused, in which case that is sad but not my problem. I'm afraid I don't have the energy or inclination to spend more time giving you the benefit of the doubt, because I have found with certain kinds of people it is just an endless cycle.

Happy Birthday Marcel. I just saw this, then I saw it was your birthday:

I know! Let's all take sides! (Joking—about how good guy vs bad guy, black and white thinking is what lies at the root of all these dramas people feed off) Seriously though, is anyone else reminded of the Karpman Drama Triangle?

I'm not assuming anything, as you say yourself I am simply responding to what Greg has written. Greg has stated his beliefs and plans very clearly both here and on his website, so I don't need to assume anything about his beliefs as he has made them systematically clear. If he thinks I have made any wrong assumptions, why not leave that for him to say instead of jumping in with your own assumptions based on nothing anyone has said, but simply your own prejudice. Sometimes it's hard not to come across as condescending to people who don't get it. I am sick of tone trolls who like to take offense and make a big fuss about the way something is phrased while ignoring or distorting the actual content and intent of the author. I am sick of people demonizing anyone who criticizes or says something 'negative' what is this turning into some fucking feel-good New Age commune? I have actually been toning down what I feel like saying when I get comments like I did from chnt, and my 'lunatic' remark was meant lightheartedly. It pales in comparison to the number of times chnt has called me things like a stupid ignorant cunt, the way he constantly takes a condescending attitude towards me and feels the need like you to 'teach me' something and has made many erroneous assumptions and accusations. You don't see me crying about it and chnt can speak for himself so so just poke your nose out of it why don't you? If I was to use my powers of 'lunacy' and attempt to 'read between the lines' I might think you were just trolling me in different threads because I didn't engage with the religious debate you seemed to want elsewhere. But that would be an assumption.

Looking 'beyond the words' is not my responsibility. If Greg has some other agenda beyond what he has stated the campaign to be about, he can talk about it. Otherwise, I'll stick to what he actually said, instead of what you think he really means. I called you a lunatic for what I thought were obvious reasons, which have nothing to do with how creatively intelligent you think you are. You denied that Greg's campaign is about rights for those with religious beliefs, when that is exactly what it is about. Even though Greg has explicitly stated his campaign is to gain rights on religious grounds for use of psychedelics, you deny it is the case and tell me I am projecting these ideas onto Greg! I called you a lunatic because that seems crazy to me. Aside from that fact that religion implies beliefs about God/god(s), Greg does explicitly talk a lot about God/god on his website. I am aware of his beliefs about God/god, but it makes no difference. It doesn't change the fact that he is the one who brought beliefs about God/god into the equation, and that is what you originally asked about.

I'm not 'projecting' anything you lunatic! The 'loophole' is for religious use, this is the crux of Greg's campaign. Here are Greg's own words on the matter, I have put the relevant parts in bold:

Greg. It is not about freedom of choice regardless of beliefs! Greg is campaigning to allow people with certain religious beliefs to be afforded rights the rest of us do not have. Have you not been following the discussion?

Who cares maaaan, all that matters is you get to do the drugs broooo.

The only recent threads I can find where there is anything like that is ones featuring you, and a thread on Jesus. Unsurprisingly, both involve religion. Looking over my last couple of hundred posts, by far the majority have been friendly, positive, helpful or lighthearted. Just for the record!

may you earn many mana points

There hasn't been a collective negative bias. By far, most responses to Greg have been positive and supportive, so if anything the bias would be the other way. If you read through the posts fairly, I think you'll find a mix of good and bad reactions from Greg as well as those who have criticized him, which mostly seemed to be resolving peacefully. Arguments about who started an argument are inconsistent with your rejection of the idea that people can be blamed or held responsible for their actions. You say to look between the lines, yet you then draw all these neat distinctions, generalize and and oversimplify. Truly embracing nondualism requires a lot more work than that. You say we should examine our own actions to find the answer for why others have reacted to us negatively, and then you tell us how Greg has had all these negative reactions since he started posting here. Wouldn't the same principle apply to Greg as well? By your reasoning the cause of what you deem a 'perpetuating cycle of negative bias' is actually Greg's actions, not the negative reactions of others. It is cute that you say 'it is a pretty common tactic to show someone a negative bias, and then to call them out for reacting negatively, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy' in the middle of doing the very same thing yourself! It saddens me that more people don't understand criticism is actually a good thing: ideas, theories or approaches should not be considered sound until they have shown they can withstand scrutiny or testing. Wouldn't it be scary if we were part of a community where every response to everything anyone said or did was positive and approving? Does no one else realize how extremely fucked up that would be?

Well! A sensible and reasonable response indeed! Thank you for taking the time to explain yourself. Now allow me to explain why I said 'arrogant' and was surprised by your reaction... The way I intended it to be taken was like this: 'Now it is no secret I think you are arrogant and foolhardy, but I concede that sometimes that is exactly the kind of person for the job.' I'm glad we were able to resolve this amicably, it is refreshing! Peace Greg, I wish you best of luck, and hope the challenges you have set yourself will be fun and memorable and that somehow your campaign to legalize psychedelics for religious use will trickle down to help us poor irreligious heathens in the entheo ghetto! ;)