No, it's not. Killing those birds is spoiling your environment so that it suits your decadent, wasteful desires. Running that individual away is keeping your environment closer to its original, functioning standard.

I sound like a damn hippy, but trapping and then bashing in the heads of those birds horrible.

I bet he's a damn yuppie.

And it's easy to avoid becoming what you hate. Keep high standards, morals and ethics and avoid compromise.

not enough. If you ever feel the need to try it, just wait till you're done with high school. Not that it would kill you or anything, but it would save your parents a couple gray hairs.

You know, I really don't. I've been offered (many drugs) plenty of times, my whole high school is full of stoners... I think I've gotten past the main reason kids try it - peer preasure. That's never been a problem for me fortunetly.

I've already talked to one of my siblings about this...if I ever DO try it, then I sure aint gettin' wiser with age!:rolleyes:

I must ask this, hijacking my own post for the moment - You didn't by chance take your name from the infamous Noodle Boy, did you?

nope. One of the bands I was in called me that because I can't stop farting around on guitar during "in-between" times. I noodle. so it stuck. I even have it on one of my guitar cases. lol

JnG
 

I disagree...there is no parallel between the burning of an inanimate structure and the willful killing of innocent and relatively helpless lesser life forms.

The animals were given to us, not to wantonly destroy because it suits us, but as a part of a whole entity, the world, and it is incumbent (another $10 word) upon us to be the stewards of that world; to refrain from destruction for destruction's sake, to kill only for food or for personal safety. The death of those birds serves no purpose other than his personal edification (that's a $5 word).

Dagney has a next-door neighbor who traps squirrels because they annoy him. But unlike your murderous neighbor, he takes them miles away and releases them. I, therefore, do not have a problem with that. But it is senseless death that bothers me to the point of costing me sleep.

I would put a quick stop to this slaughter were I you.

Brian

I do not approve of killing the birds. No how. No way.
That said, I don't believe the flora and fauna of the earth was left to my stewardship, or yours. That's a religious thing.
Humans are just another critter left to his only devices to survive in a very hostile world. We were better equipt and have evolved to where if we really put out mind to it, could control everything, maybe even the weather to some degree. But that gives us neither the obligation nor right to do so.
Sure, it would be smart to take a que from other critters not to be screwing everything up around us. Those birds might dine on a bug that could wipe us out. There's too much we don't know.

Well, I knew you were educated. But I have to admit I thought you would think that opera was wimpy. My mistake.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

not whimpy as long as there are viking helmets and fat chicks.....it appeals to the biker in me.

I disagree. For myself, our stewardship is entirely based on our need to not screw up our environment. I'm not an animist, or an eco-freak. I just know that systems don't last as long as they have without some degree inherent balance. Humans mess up that balance at this point. Early on we were incapable of enough damage to skew things. Now, on the other hand, we can do significant harm. Our only obligation is to ourselves, but that obligation involves tending our fields not shepharding our or the animal's souls.

I agree that we don't know enough though.

Have you seen American Choppers on cable? My brother introduced me to it over the weekend. What a hoot.

That show is great. I'm just waiting for the Teutels to beat the living shit out of each other on camera...

Is that some new drug I haven't heard about, or are you one of those kids that do all kinds of extreme shit, including tattoos and piercings, but won't use drugs, drink, or have sex?

There are predators out there that can kill almost anything in their neighborhood. They don't because there is no need. They kill enough to eat and killing more would be a waste of energy. But they don't have "stewardship" or "domain" over they rest of the critters.
I believe we agree, we would be wise to follow their example and only take what we need and leave the rest alone.
The point I was making, or trying to, is that "stewardship" or "domain" over the beasts is a religious thing, and I don't buy it.

Yeah, we agree.

But I still contend that my belief in a need for "system maintenance", if the word stewardship is unpalatable to you, is necessary because our consciousness, our ability to think abstractly is what makes us the most likely to damage the system we live in. All I'm worried about is having an environment that will continue to provide for the human species. It's not religious in any sense. I'm significantly non-theistic.

There is a book by Michael Shermer called "The Science of Good and Evil." I think you might appreciate it.

Book Description
In his third and final investigation into the science of belief, bestselling author Michael Shermer tackles the evolution of morality and ethics

A century and a half after Darwin first proposed an “evolutionary ethics,” science has begun to tackle the roots of morality. Just as evolutionary biologists study why we are hungry (to motivate us to eat) or why sex is enjoyable (to motivate us to procreate), they are now searching for the roots of human nature.

In The Science of Good and Evil, psychologist and science historian Michael Shermer explores how humans evolved from social primates to moral primates, how and why morality motivates the human animal, and how the foundation of moral principles can be built upon empirical evidence. Along the way he explains the im-plications of statistics for fate and free will; fuzzy logic for the existence of pure good and pure evil; and ecology for the development of early moral sentiments among the first humans. As he closes the divide between science and morality, Shermer draws on stories from the Yanamamö, infamously known as the “fierce people” of the tropical rain forest, to the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan, to John Hinckley’s insanity defense. The Science of Good and Evil is ultimately a profound look at the moral animal, belief, and the scientific pursuit of truth.

I'll check it out, thanks.:)

I feel almost cheated...

Don't be, I put it on your credit card.;)

Ah, good.

That's a small price to pay to bring someone out of the darkness. :D

Burning books make's the darkness go away.:haha:

So does light reading

Oh yeah, you and the *insert preferred denomination here* Church...:rolleyes:

Not to hijack the thread, but what do you consider high standards, morals and ethics? The standards, morals and ethics of society as a whole, or your own private morals, ethics and standards, which may or may not agree with or be acceptable to society as a whole? And as to compromise, don't you think that we all need to compromise, at certain points, just to be able to get along in the world? Or did you really mean to say, "avoid lowering your standards"?

We now return you to the tangled skein which this thread has become...:D

First you have to establish a set of standards/morals/ethics, that will seperate you from most people.

Compromise relates to after you have established your parameters and a willingness to stick to them.

Not yet, good point soul.:)

Oh, don't make that mistake. no, no, no!
"It's OK folks, were culling the library to protect "the children" but we're not a religious group so there's nothing to fear from us. No sir, better go keep an eye on the churches while we do what's best for you, here." :eek:

So why does one's standards/morals/ethics have to set one apart? I understand when it comes to things like educational standards being higher than the state standards. Creating a personal set of standards there is just common sense. But society does have standards, morals and ethics. They're called "laws," among other things. Some are stupid, like not allowing gays to get married, and some are smart, like forbidding unjustified murder. But some people, for instance, think it's ok to beat their children above and beyond what society deems acceptable (like some religious groups who have been brought to court for child abuse, and then justified it with bible verse)--according to their morals, beating the devil out of your child is acceptable. According to a player's morals, it's ok to cheat on their S.O. According to the ethics of Clinton, messing around with an intern is ok, because it wasn't REALLY sex.

All of the above ethics, morals and standards are illegal, yet the people who hold them believe themselves superior to those who do not agree, or take them to task for their individual morals, ethics, and standards. They're willing to stick to these beliefs and not compromise on them because they believe they're more right than everyone else.

You managed to appear to answer the first question while not actually imparting any information; the second answer implies that you did mean "no compromise" (by that, I mean that when you said "a willingness to stick to them" that you meant that the more willing you are to stick to them, the less willing you are to compromise. If a religious nut is willing to stick to the "morality" of "beating the devil out of" a misbehaving child, and will not compromise to the point that the child is beaten to death or the courts intervene, does that make the person better because they didn't compromise?)

Can you give me a for instance?

Not that you'd recognize. This happens on the local level when concerned parents/citizens decided to save everyone from themselves. No religious affiliation, "just friends of the library".

The people around here have too much difficulty keeping their religion on the inside for them to get away clean...:)

I believe it though.

Yeah, what he said.

You know how certain "brands" of pot come around every so often? They all have cute names like 'Bubblegum' or 'Alaskan Thunder Fuck (ATF)'. Everyone knows someone who can get it, but I could never find anyone who knew the original source.

I think people were making it all up. Did anyone ever smoke enough weed to be able to tell the difference? You know, like a wine connoisseur, but for pot.

Yes, it's a hijack, but it's related to the original.

A friend of mine could tell you what kind,how high up the plant, how high up the mountain/hill and where the hill was. But since nobody else could, how do we know he was right?
Yeah Noodle, there's an identifiable difference in strains.

The truth is out there.

Dammit. I had quit, too. (Draws on remaining dregs of self-control) I will not add this site to my favorites list. I will not add this site to my favorites list. I will not add this site to my favorites list.

Does metal music make you want to smoke pot. I just fired up some old Def Leppard tunes and was wanting for something I cant quite explain....

....maybe whiskey.....but no. I never got into the whole pot thing, maybe I didnt listen to enough of the right music.

I got it. To shoot the neighbor that's pounding on the wall. False alarm, sorry.

I couldn't find this anywhere else, so I'm going to post this link. If you are currently, used to be, or even know someone who smokes dope, you should watch this:
The Marijuana-logues

Oh yeah, featuring the hilarious Arj Barker!

"The world's pretty fucked up right now.... shouldn't *I* be?"

Nice feed splice
 

Who needs a television?Enjoyed that.Party on world.

I'm getting garbled sound.:(

not all people are thesame, everyone is uniek, so let the ones who feel better with it , do it! Remember that there are some advantages to it too! For people with particular diseases can it be a great way to function or kill the pain! For normal people it can be a social drug, or it can kill some mental pain, or it can make u feel good... With everything u do there is a upper and downer-side ;-) If u dont cause any trouble , ur just smokin, and whats the difference between something u feel better with, than smoke a pack a ciggies a day? The smoke will both do you harm but wat effect is there on a normal cigarette? Im against smoking pot in public, in the car...anything that could cause a public issue, but at home u do as u like! I started 15 years ago, a joint a day, before i went to bed...now it increased a bit...the days i got vacation its maybe 2 or 3 a day....but i got no mental or fysical problem and dont drink! In fact it started when i was mentally unaible to sleep after my fathers dead...it was the only thing that helped me back than.....So not all smokers are potheads or junkies, i work with the government and im focussed every day...but like i said, everyones different...

There are in the human brain, receptors to which THC connects perfectly. A perfect fit. I believe this is why it is so effective in treating MS. Apparently it "covers over" the gaps in the mylin sheath basically providing a route across the gap along which information can travel ( MS causes the mylin sheath to break down in places) ......I am not a doctor myself so my second hand explanation of the description told to me by a doctor maybe be a little garbled. Anybody out there know about the effects of THC on MS?

Heroin is a "perfect fit" for receptors in the human brain too. So what?

(no, I am not equating herion and MJ use, nor will I start the slippery slope/gateway drug argument)

The receptors they fit are different ones. Heroin, unfortunately, fits some of the receptors that govern involuntary functions, which is why it's so dangerous and why overdose results in death. THC fits the receptors for a set of brain chemicals known as anandamides, so well that I think they are starting to call them "cannabinoid receptors" ...and does not attach to receptors that control involuntary activity, which is why overdose is safe and only results in sleep.

Chocolate also contains anandamides. They figure they control memory, and bliss.

MMM.....BLISS

I'm one of those wierd people who get paranoid from pot. I would smoke it as a social thing with friends in college, but every single time it would give me something like an anxiety attack. I have no problem with the people who do get a nice buzz off of it and use it responsibly. Its probably less harmful than our legal drug - alcohol. I do enjoy the occasional glass of wine and if a pal of mine wants to light up while I drink my glass of wine, we can have a nice companionable buzz together. To each her own.;)

Wolf I just thought it was interesting:P
Thanks UT that was the information I was lookin for

receptors or no receptors, a lot depends on yourself and the environment u live in! Some people dont get enough outta MJ and look for other stuff to experiment, anything can be addictive, but the harder the drug, the tougher it is! Ive seen a lot a people die here fron heroin, ive never seen one die because off MJ, off course on a long term it can be harmfull...but it depends again on the user and the ammount he uses! Two minds never work alike, so some people get paranoid, and some feel good...
I wouldnt advice anyone to just start smoking for pleasure, but than again there are much wurse things people do for their pleasure!!

Someone said something with which I totally agree:I'm suspicious of people who don't self medicate.Is that bad? I don't think so.

The real point is not whether you do or don't, but whether you have the right to choose. In the words of the famous philosopher, Lou Reed;
"It ain't nobody's business, nobody business
No, no, no no, nobody's business, no, no, ...
It ain't nobody's business, yeah, but my own
Nobody's business, but my own."

Self-medication is merely acknowledgement of a problem, or a symptom of the problem.

I spent six moths self-medicating, luckily I realized that it solved nothing, and in my case was killing me.

Or even worse, they use the problem as an excuse to self-medicate.

it aint always like that , like i said, people are not all alike, maybe you had a real bad experience, for some people with m-s its a great help...!! And off course there will be some who try to get it with their disease as an excuse...but like "the great Bruce" above me said....why is nobodys business....

bump - ended up here cuz of an IotD thread and spaced out reading 12 pages on smokin weed. Curious what current dwellers think or if opinions of those who already posted had been "altered" since then...

I used to smoke everyday for years. I grew it (like bonsai) Followed bands around the country with it & more... that I won't admit to. The last few times I had tried it were not good experiences.
Once my daughter was conceived I was done with it and never looked back.

It's fattening.

You're what?

Used to do it on a daily basis for about 1.5 years, which was plenty.
It was too expensive of a habit, and there was a lot of work I could have gotten done, lots of things I could have learned, but didn't.

Still do it occasionally, but I can go many months without it just fine.
When it's there, with the right setting and the right people, why not?

my two daughters gave me a beautiful bong for my birthday. Does that answer your question? :)

There had to be a reason your name is "Cloud".

Smoke it once in a while, usually with my Ex who is an everyday-er.
Not a big fan. It tastes lousy and makes me cough.
I prefer Vodka, rum or tequila once or twice a week.
But if I could get my hands on vicodin, I'd be on that fluffy, pink cloud every chance I had. lol!!!

it's my teenage hippie girl name. Actually it referred to my hair!

"Like sleeping on a cloud."