Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Golden_Eagle said: 

Turncoat said: 

You have a very... optimistic view of government. 

I don't really see it being as simple as it naturally phasing into leadership positions, as the 80s proved that is not difficult to do at all during the cocaine craze. 

 Yet that was the case with our subject Justin Trudeau. Before Trudeau Harper was in power for 11 years

Just seems like a sheep answer tbh. 

 That's reality, and as usual you're bothered by it.

No denying that legalization was listed in his policy, and why I voted him in the first time.

Boo hoo.

I'm going to have to go with Turncoat on this one.

I've heard the hemp-fuel propaganda, too, and bought into it at one point. However, it seems almost unimaginable that these diesel companies wouldn't make use of hemp fuel when, if all these claims were true, any company that switched to hemp fuel would make insane profits. Now I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying that there needs to be pretty compelling evidence to convince people that this type of global conspiracy theory is true.

What I feel you're doing is presenting one side of the argument. What is missing is a critical analysis of the arguments from the other side, without strawmanning them. Otherwise, it feels as though you've been duped and you simply accepted some random information some dudes on the Internet provided you with, while cherry picking a few research papers that support your preconceived notions of what the answer should be. Again, not saying that's what you're doing, but that's how this argument appears to me at face value without some critical analysis of the opposing arguments.

5 minutes of googling reveals to me that there has been significant debate over the usefulness of hemp-fuel, for example, but you mentioned none of that, which makes me suspicious from the onset.

AppleGenius said: 

I'm going to have to go with Turncoat on this one.

Go with him on what exactly ? He never contributed anything. Just asking an endless questions, and when he had something to say, it was something I already said.

I've heard the hemp-fuel propaganda, too, and bought into it at one point. However, it seems almost unimaginable that these diesel companies wouldn't make use of hemp fuel when, if all these claims were true, any company that switched to hemp fuel would make insane profits. Now I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying that there needs to be pretty compelling evidence to convince people that this type of global conspiracy theory is true.

The oil industry wants to sell oil. Oil being quite rare and when found it makes it's land owner rich. Even for a big corporation there's no incentive to move to another resource when it would be less profitable. Look at today's gas prices. Hemp wouldn't inflate like that if it were being mass produced for fuel.

What I feel you're doing is presenting one side of the argument. What is missing is a critical analysis of the arguments from the other side, without strawmanning them. Otherwise, it feels as though you've been duped and you simply accepted some random information some dudes on the Internet provided you with, while cherry picking a few research papers that support your preconceived notions of what the answer should be. Again, not saying that's what you're doing, but that's how this argument appears to me at face value without some critical analysis of the opposing arguments.

That happens often enough. 

I'm educated on the subject. The Propaganda is real.

Watch the intro to this, or skim through it. It really never aged well.

Basically the 1936 film is about some guy that smokes weed and turns dangerous and starts doing all kinds of dumb shit.

5 minutes of googling reveals to me that there has been significant debate over the usefulness of hemp-fuel, for example, but you mentioned none of that, which makes me suspicious from the onset.

 I mentioned hemp has 5,000 use cases, which is incorrect, there's thousands more.

Also this conversation was never centered around the oil industry. My claim is that everything made with hemp is super high quality long lasting, and seems to impress no matter what it's used for. Even cancer treatment, it's also a medicine, cannabis too.

I did mention the material that is lighter and stronger than steel used by Henry Ford, it's a type of plastic made from hemp and I mentioned the bio fuel. 

There are various sources for this information online and if you do more research you'll find it's true. Online doubters will doubt.

The plant can legit save the world.

Have you seriously gone through the counter arguments? If so, what are they, and how did you/others counter them? If I google for more than 5 minutes, do I expect to find other counter arguments besides the ones you listed, within reason?

AppleGenius said: 

Have you seriously gone through the counter arguments? If so, what are they, and how did you/others counter them? If I google for more than 5 minutes, do I expect to find other counter arguments besides the ones you listed?

 I asked what you agree with TC about when he never contributed anything.

Otherwise I can't carry on with you.

Golden_Eagle said: 

Watch the intro to this, or skim through it. It really never aged well.

Basically the 1936 film is about some guy that smokes weed and turns dangerous and starts doing all kinds of dumb shit.

 

 

Great film btw. 

Golden_Eagle said: 

AppleGenius said: 

Have you seriously gone through the counter arguments? If so, what are they, and how did you/others counter them? If I google for more than 5 minutes, do I expect to find other counter arguments besides the ones you listed?

 I asked what you agree with TC about when he never contributed anything.

Otherwise I can't carry on with you.

I agree with him that the only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn is "I don't know", which through Occam's razor leads to rejection of your hypothesis. I.e., you have not made your case. While it may be annoying that he's asking questions, the burden of proof is on you. The only thing he has to prove, in his position, is that his standard of evidence is reasonable, fixed, universal, and not contradictory or fine-tuned and open to criticism. I.e., that you can in principle convince him of your case, given that you meet the standard or demonstrate that his standard is flawed and that you can meet another, better-established or less flawed standard. I provided my standard, which derives from the scientific method, above.

Have you seriously gone through the counter arguments? If so, what are they, and how did you/others counter them? If I google for more than 5 minutes, do I expect to find other counter arguments besides the ones you listed?

AppleGenius said: 

Golden_Eagle said: 

AppleGenius said: 

Have you seriously gone through the counter arguments? If so, what are they, and how did you/others counter them? If I google for more than 5 minutes, do I expect to find other counter arguments besides the ones you listed?

 I asked what you agree with TC about when he never contributed anything.

Otherwise I can't carry on with you.

I agree with him that the only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn is "I don't know", which through Occam's razor leads to rejection of your hypothesis. I.e., you have not made your case.

You absolutely don't know.

Occam's razor is for the development of theoretical models. I never made a hypothesis nor did fail to make a case, some of my, as you say, case, is present in the OP.

Everything I mentioned here is self evident, and I provided some already.

TC's question in a nutshell is "Why legalize it now, why not sooner or later ?" That's all. There's nothing to agree with there, it's just a question mate. A question I replied to again and again.

I also told TC that he can't learn from me. His ego won't allow it. He settles for "No there has to be a bigger picture, it can't be that". And has yet to provide any material. In a deluded way, your Occam's razor rejects the two of you, as your only material are questions and doubt, rrgardless of what I say.

While it may be annoying that he's asking questions, the burden of proof is on you.

What's left to prove ? The timeline of the economic boom ? That Justin Trudeau was planning on legalization before he was elected ? That diesel engines can run on hemp bio fuel ? The propaganda from mainstream ? Maybe you want proof that cannabis has a multi billion dollar industry in Canada alone ?

Do you want proof that hemp was actually used in more applications before it was demonized  ?

This isn't a theoretical discussion.

The only thing he has to prove, in his position, is that his standard of evidence is reasonable, fixed, universal, and not contradictory or fine-tuned and open to criticism. I.e., that you can in principle convince him of your case, given that you meet the standard or demonstrate that his standard is flawed and that you can meet another, better-established or less flawed standard. I provided my standard, which derives from the scientific method, above.

What's proven about TC is he lies, and with that I csn assure you his standards of evidence has been quite laughable for the community. If that's what he must prove then good for him. That doesn't make or break my perspective.

Have you seriously gone through the counter arguments? If so, what are they, and how did you/others counter them? If I google for more than 5 minutes, do I expect to find other counter arguments besides the ones you listed?

 "The" counter arguments sounds vague. While this subject so far involves thousands of use cases and politics.

At this point Hemp is impractical to use as fuel because of it's price. Hemp farmers also want more for their crop. I touched on that earlier about supply demand. It's low supply. If you ask me, the best vehicle to replace the combustion engine is the hydro powered car, which is basically a refuelable electric car. And like all cars, that too would be greater if it had the hemp bodywork and other components.

In all honesty I never argued any of this. My only complaint here is TC's repeated question, which at one point entailed "why not the future ?" despite implementing the painfully obvious with actual history, his standards for learning seems pretty weak in that regard. 

In any case, it doesn't seem like you've really read any of the posts here. I assume you're here trying to impress TC for when you fly to Ohio and go running into his arms.

Turncoat said: 

Golden_Eagle said: 

Watch the intro to this, or skim through it. It really never aged well.

Basically the 1936 film is about some guy that smokes weed and turns dangerous and starts doing all kinds of dumb shit.

 

 

Great film btw. 

 Meh. It's kinda boring. It was funny the first time.

Turncoat said: 

Canary said: 

Turncoat said: 

Blue_Jay said: 

Turncoat said: 

So you really think why they bothered with legalizing it is as simple as a price increase on hemp? 

 

I'm just asking you what you think is why they legalized it now, rather than later or earlier, and your answer is effectively "Hemp's scarcity is higher now, and people know the truth about the drug", which is the most surface level read for reasoning through this I've seen. 

Come on now. 

 

 

- Government Money Grab. It's what they call a cash crop. ( Mentioned more than once )

This would have been a cash crop if done earlier, too, the same cash crop that in the past would have hurt existing businesses. 

I'm questioning what the tipping point was. 

- The Boomer era, which was an economic boom in technology and other products which established today's materials, plus today those materials are set in stone. ( Mentioned once )

This is where you mentioned hemp, then implied that it's scarcity is why it's allowed..? 

Following that you began making some weird point of repeating yourself as if you weren't being listened to, when I am only stuck asking the same questions over how you didn't really address the point of it. 

I find the timing of legalization suspicious over how not much was really that different otherwise, it makes me question the larger motivation. 

 

1) The Woody Harrelson movie Grass was immensely popular among GenXers and boomers..

2) Huge numbers of people already smoke the stuff, anyway. Here in Canada it was one of those things that was technically illegal for as long as I can remember, but nobody ever bothered to enforce the laws outside of election years.

3) Anita Sarkeezian happened. The alt right douchebro community. Without realizing it, the right wing fucked themselves by aiming their pitches at young angry white men (who have traditionally aimed their fist waving leftward.) One thing young guys do that old Xtians don't do is party and play video games. And thus, without knowing it, the right created a new market for weed.

4) Our gvt figured out how to turn the sale of a relatively cheap highschool hustle into huge profits for them. Years ago, people would spend $75 on a quarter oz and divvie it up into 8 or 10 dimes, plus one for personal use. Each sold for $15. (No, it's not my math that's off lol) Mostly, they just sold enough to fund their own habit plus chips. There was not a huge amount of money to be made outside of homegrown operations requiring farmland and a huge network of distributors. The profit margin is probably worse than selling t shirts at Giant Tiger.

I looked into the new laws bc I really need the cash. HOLY FUCK A DUCK JUST BEND ME OVER AND MAKE ME BLEED FUCK FUCK.

$6000 for a license, plus another $4000 for a retail license. It's still illegal to sell out of one's home. (Still trying to figure out how to sell it on the internet.) So we have to rent a retail space, which is easier said than done in larger cities where there will actually be a large enough customer base to offset the cost of licensing. Here in KW that would be about $3000/ month.

We have to renew that after 2 years, at a cost of another $4000. The renewal is only good for another 4 years.

Also, the gvt figured out how to put expiry dates on the product, to force people to get rid of large quantities on a monthly basis, or have to pay fines. This is a load of bs and a money grab. Tombs have been found with 7000 year old stashes of weed. The shit was still fine, and better bc it ages well.

It's also much more difficult to sell it from behind a counter at a store, because the same annoying laws that apply to advertising cigarettes also apply to advertising weed. So we can't make it look "cool" or glamorous or cute. We can't use cartoon characters or human or cartoon faces in the advertising. Basically, we have to package it like a prescription drug with the name of the product and maybe a picture of a pot leaf. And nothing else.

We are also not allowed to give out free samples.

So basically, we have to sit in an unadorned building and not mention to anybody what's behind that beige foldy door up there, unless they ask. I suppose a retailer could spend ridiculous amounts of time smoking on the sidewal out front, but there's probably some other bylaw that makes that a ticketing offense.

So lots of people lose their shirts and end up having to sell off their related merch as well, at discounted prices.

The gvt has made $43billion on this so far, and the number of licenses sold are limited.