chilli
-
Content count
2,919 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by chilli
-
-
x x
in Chill Space
Is it just me or do people's houses who keep the cats inside all the time, smell permanently
And faintly like catshit?
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
I think
What's cruel is keeping a cat inside 23/7. That and people who keep birds in cages to me
And
My way of thinking that's some really fucked up things to do. But that's me
And that's
MY soapbox. Depriving something of freedom
Must be one of the cruelest acts we can do to another creature of any sp.
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.
-
1
-
-
x x
in Chill Space
lock em in the garage at night.
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
-
x x
in Chill Space
-
x x
in Chill Space
why the fuck would you tell him something like that? he just mines that sort of information so he can use it at a later point in an underhanded way.
Because I have issues with trust and poor boundaries probably.
See, I am doing it again!
-
x x
in Chill Space
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.
-
4
-
-
x x
in Chill Space
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.
-
1
-
-
I think it is sad that rather than people supporting him in principle we are all trying to stop him from doing things.
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.
-
I think if you wish to not come across as condescending...
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.
-
1
-
-
Happy Birthday Marcel. I just saw this, then I saw it was your birthday:
-
2
-
-
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?
-
1
-
-
can't you see the condescension in your remarks chilli..?
& it seems once again you "assume" to know Gregs beliefs, because of some words he has uttered or wrote...you assumed I was a religious person not long back.
Work out the workings of your own mind, before you "assume" to know the workings of others.
Love to you, my poor confused brother...condescension is a rude trait, as my last statement shows.
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.
-
yes that is what he said, you've done a good job at looking at the words, but you dont seem to be able to look beyond them.
you are getting too caught up in the words, you cannot separate religion (catholicism, christianity, islam, etc) from "religion", from spirituality.
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.
why am i a lunatic? because i am able to separate cultural meaning from ideas and concepts? i thought that was creative intelligence
nothing in those words you posted mentioned anything about god either, once again do you know his perspective pertaining to "god"?
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.
nothing in those words you posted mentioned anything about god either, once again do you know his perspective pertaining to "god"?
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.
-
1
-
-
no he isn't and do you know his perspective on "god"?
greg is campaigning to create a loophole allowing people who use certain compounds legal sanction. you are projecting beliefs and opinions about religion onto what he is doing.
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:
The use of Transcendent Compounds is an ancient and valid form of religious and spiritual practice... there can be no legitimate reason for prohibiting their use within religious and spiritual frameworks.Religious freedoms are protected within the State of Victoria by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006). Greg Kasarik has been directly lobbying the Victorian Government for around 18 months in order to ensure that these protections are formally extended to persons who use Transcendent Compounds as a part of their religious practice.
The demands are simple: "That the Victorian Government provide regulated access to Transcendent Compounds for religious and spiritual purposes, as per their obligations under sections 7 and 14 of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006)".
This action is intended to pressure the Government into complying with the law and to provide an opportunity to educate the wider public about the reality of Transcendent Compounds and the fact that their use is a safe and appropriate form of religious, spiritual and mystical expression.
-
1
-
-
who said anything about belief in god?
Greg.
beliefs aren't the issue here, the issue is freedom of choice, regardless of your beliefs, if you choose to use certain compounds this can potentially benefit you.
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?
-
1
-
-
Who cares maaaan, all that matters is you get to do the drugs broooo.
-
2
-
-
from looking at other threads in which you have participated, it seems that you spend most of your time here trying to piss people off.
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
-
1
-
-
another mistaken factor, you have to join a religion/cult to support greg... this movement is about joining a cult, false.
baseball aka moneyball, superfunds for presidential campaigns, double speak in politics, religious preferences, the rules of society.
the rules are biased and immoral, but there they are solidified in society, if you want to get ahead you have to play the rules of the game.
greg has found spirituality with compounds, he is playing the game with the intention of creating a loophole for freedom of choice, that is the ONLY thing he is doing.
he is further extending the hypothetical loophole to anyone who chooses to use it, no strings attached.
he is also networking for support to help create a loophole for freedom of choice, is that wrong? does that not potentially benefit most people on this forum and a greater number that aren't on this forum?
what's the problem? is it perhaps the strings that you attach to greg that create the problem? 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, these things can also largely be unconscious, sometimes when someone reacts negatively to you it is a good idea to try to reflect on why they may have reacted negatively, the key word here being re-act. what has happened since greg started posting here is that there has been a collective negative bias shown towards greg which has created a perpetuating cycle of negative bias
perhaps stop getting caught up in debating the lines and start trying recognising what is between and beyond the lines, it's not always so easy explaining things perfectly/in a way that everyone understands, that's where a mature attitude can filter through the words and look for deeper meanings. not trying to sound condescending faults i recognise in others i recognise in myself
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?
-
1
-
-
@ chilli. Maybe I need to take a chill pill as well.
Given our unfortunate history, which dates back to the mess last year, I'd suggest that any post that includes the phrase "I think you are extremely arrogant" is asking for trouble. If you want to communicate, then go ahead. But if that is the case, don't sabotage your efforts with needless antagonism. indeed, I think I remember making a similar comment back then, as well.
Ballzac fairly much encapsulated why your objection to LSD being a Transcendent Compound is nonsensical. In this phrase, the general implies nothing about the specific. Saying that "guns have been used in wars for over 500 years" does not entail the claim that "every gun has been used in wars for over 500 years". Rather, It is the latter which entails the former. Similarly, the statement that "Golden Retrievers are used in duck hunting" is not rendered incorrect simply because Wonder Dog has never been near a hunt in her life. You might disagree, but you'd also be wrong.
I can see your point with respect to the way I express the safety of these compounds, but you have seem to have entirely ignored my stated reasons for chosing to express myself the way I have. More disturbingly, you still seem to be claiming that I am saying that these compounds are perfectly safe, despite the fact that I freely acknowledged that they are not. I am left wondering which part of " "So while they can't be regarded as perfectly safe (nothing can), decades of research clearly show that they fall within the acceptable limits of safety when compared with other activities that are legal within our communities." you did not understand.
I believe that the phrase, "psychologically safe in appropriate dose, set and setting", is a much better descriptor than "relatively safe", as it highlights the main reasons why people get into bad territory with these and allows me to educate on more than one level. I do abbreviate this to "psychologically safe", but in the same way as people talk about horse riding being "safe", rather than the absolutist meaning that you seem determined to impose.
Also, remember that part of what I need to do is to communicate an effective message in as short a time as possible. Modern media relies on sound bites and I need mine to be as memorable and easy to digest as possible. Tying myself in knots trying to communicate the intricate complexities of any of these compounds is a sure way to score an own goal. Yes, things get dumbed down more than either of us would like, but for a nightly news program, I have maybe four to six seconds to communicate the essence of my position and I need to do it both confidently and unambiguously. "Non-addictive, non-toxic and psychologically safe" does what I want it to do and can always tag on "in appropriate dose, set and setting".
Can you imagine saying, "Non addictive, non-toxic and relatively safe" in an interview with one of the better interviewers, especially if they were hostile? It would be an invitation to being eaten alive. They would focus on that word "relatively", because it screams ambivalence, uncertainty and lack of confidence. At that point, you may as well kiss the interview good by as your message would be immediately lost as you were hoist high on the very rope that you had provided.
Now, if you happen to know any media professionals who would like to help me tailor my message, then I am all ears, but for now, I'm sticking with what I know.
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! ;)
-
While Greg hasn't really put me in the mood to jump to his defense
You (and Greg on this point) are absolutely right (not that you need me to tell you).
Thanks for explaining in a way I was able to understand 'zac... I love being wrong!
-
2
-
-
Seriously dude. You really need to take a chill pill or two. I might be arrogant, but what is it with you and your need to be obnoxious and continually pick fights? From looking at other threads in which you have participated, it seems that you spend most of your time here trying to piss people off.
It puzzles me when you say things like this. I am chilled, dude. When I write to you I don't feel angry or resentful, I am simply trying to communicate my own thoughts as best I can. I am a very straightforward person by nature, but it seems no matter what approach I take you pick out something to get upset about. I must admit I get a little bemused when I read some of your reactions, but that is the limit of how much emotion I have invested in any interaction with you. It's fine if you disagree or don't like my input, but please stop taking it so personally, it is not meant that way at all.
Firstly I have never said that LSD has any history of ancient use. I have said that "Transcendent Compounds" have such use, which is perfectly true, given that peyote use in the archaeological record goes back over 5,500 years. It seems that you are incapable of differentiating the grammar that distinguishes generalities from specifics. Or more likely, you have an insane need to argue even the stupidest little thing.
A lot of heated language and accusations there Greg. Your own website which you linked us to lists LSD as one of the so-called Transcendent Compounds. So is it, or isn't it? Don't accuse me of failing to understand grammar instead of addressing this inconsistency, it is silly and self-defeating. If you think this is arguing over stupid little details, I fail to see how you are going to have any success convincing the unsympathetic of your views, because it is these kind of inconsistencies they are going to bring to light.
Secondly, I stand by the decades of peer reviewed research that conclusively demonstrates that that these compounds are "psychologically safe", or more accurately that they are "psychologically safe in an appropriate dose, set and setting". Indeed, if you actually read what I wrote instead of simply mining it for things to object to, you'd notice that I say the following: "So while they can't be regarded as perfectly safe (nothing can), decades of research clearly show that they fall within the acceptable limits of safety when compared with other activities that are legal within our communities." http://www.kasarik.com/Entheogens1.php
I am well aware of the psilocybin paper cited in Wikipedia and just as aware of its significant issues, many of which have to do with the fact that it mostly discusses unsupervised use, poly drug use and the unfortunate fact that tourists were continually taking too many shrooms (with alcohol) and getting themselves into trouble. The abstract of the paper itself says:
"In conclusion, the use of magic mushrooms is relatively safe as only few and relatively mild adverse effects have been reported. The low prevalent but unpredictable provocation of panic attacks and flash-backs remain, however, a point of concern".Nothing there that I would argue against. Even the "relatively safe" is appropriate for the types of use it mostly reported on, even though it is too conservative when discussing non-recreational use by an educated population, as would occur should access to these compounds be made in a regulated ,manner for religious and spiritual purposes.
I don't see what is so funny. Physical harm because you are doing a hunger strike. Psychological harm because you are claiming substances like LSD and mushrooms have been conclusively shown to be psychologically safe, and there are people who might believe you and end up doing themselves serious psychological harm. Legal harm because of the potential for half-cocked campaigns like this to bring even more negative attention to these compounds.
I am only suggesting that you are a little more cautious with how you phrase things. For example, whether LSD is a Transcendent Compound or not—all you would have to do to make your argument stronger is make your claim weaker, so that you say 'most Transcendent Compounds have a history of ancient use' Either that, of remove LSD from the list of Transcendent Compounds.
Similarly, you could qualify your claim to say 'relatively safe' which would be more accurate and would help your opponents to take your argument more seriously. As it is I think these inconsistencies greatly weaken your case and make it seem like your enthusiasm is clouding your judgment.
Certainly these issues are ones that I've already had to deal with when dealing with the Government and sceptical members of the public. Andrew Bolt and his type will have a field day with this sort of stuff, but your crappy attitude, sanctimonious hysterics ("and hope no one comes to any physical, psychological or legal harm as a result of your actions" LOL!) and need to distort everything are wearing really, really thin.
Fine, I am happy not to waste any more time on this as you seem incapable of accepting constructive criticism or listening to anyone who disagrees with you, and seem to prefer taking offence and resorting to insults and posing as a martyr instead of allowing your fixed ideas to be seriously scrutinized... wait a minute! You really are religious, aren't you?
I'll leave you to it then, like I said good luck with your hunger strike and take care.
I will add it seems strange to me that you evince such a patroinizing attitude towards these forums and only seem to use them to rally support for your cause, I think that is quite rude.
-
3
-
Meet up: Perth
in News & Notices
Posted
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!