the words shame and bad were used. Or did I imagine that?
Were they invoked to show that one side was inferior? yes, yes they were.
And that side… it isn’t inverior… or superior.
Shame and bad… that’s not her complex, or mine. It’s yours.
the words shame and bad were used. Or did I imagine that?
Were they invoked to show that one side was inferior? yes, yes they were.
And that side… it isn’t inverior… or superior.
Shame and bad… that’s not her complex, or mine. It’s yours.
I’ve had ‘that’ conversation with several family members, old and young alike; they will not, cannot be brought around. No matter how measured, no matter how logical, no matter the strength of evidence, the imperative is to defend their turf.
The equivalence with alcohol prohibition brushed aside without a thought, the same tired and disproven arguments rehashed and regurgitated.
The dosage, the dopiness, the goddamn gateway, all the points that can be made about their favourite drug which is not a drug: ‘It just isn’t the same’.
All whilst swirling a glass of hooch. The fourth or fifth.
…but the important thing is ‘everyone does it’ and they ‘know how to handle their drink’.
“It’s a shame” means “the situation is unfortunate.” If you want to object to jhutch2000’s post, you’re focusing on the wrong bit in the wrong way.
I don’t see it as their ’ turf’ being protected. I see is as ‘the illusion that they’re not spiritually bankrupt’ being protected.
But I’m not sure what drunks have to do with this story. I hope you’re not equating drug use with drug abuse, that would be a terrible nuance to gloss over.
As has been explained by multiple people, and demonstrated multiple times in other comments: no, no they weren’t.
Calm down, take a breath, and actually read what people are saying rather than what you’re imagining they’re saying. I have said absolutely nothing about the news anchor (other than to say that she did a good job explaining her position). You’re attempting to argue with an imaginary version of me here, and I’m not going to have any part in it.
I don’t see the shame in it. Or the misfortune.
I am saying that the word choice was a character assassination, or might have been, or could easily be seen as such.
Anyone who can’t agree that maybe I have a point, that person has an agenda. Look around.
Remember when Manny Ramirez said, “This is our fucking town.” He said it in front of millions…but because it was patriotic, nothing happens…I consider what she did an act of patriotism. Anyone who uses medical cannabis for cancer would understand.
“That man definitely killed that other man. Or, at least, he had a gun in his hand. Or, you could see a gun in his hand, if you squinted just right.”
As one of my favourite commenters I have to ask; “You been smokin’ crack?”
This whole conversation is like watching a threaded version of the Monty Python Argument sketch…
No it’s not.
Am I the only person thinking that if you are going to have a new face of pot activism, this is the lady? She’s young, she’s pretty, she’s polished looking, she doesn’t look like a patchouli loving hippie, she can talk on camera (I assume, given that was apparently her job, before she f’d that up). Seems to me with the current atmosphere that there would be quite a lot of possibilities for her.
Depending on her further career path, the consequences can be pretty well significantly positive.
How many people, really, were offended by her taboo language? On the other hand, how many are offended by the kind of censorship that makes the F bomb so potent? I see people use “fuck” all the time on the intenet, and it doesn’t seem to cause any harm.
There’s a significant overlap, I think, in the public sentiment that an F-word should cost you your broadcast license, and smoking the J should get you jail time. It’s not hard to imagine a future where people on TV are allowed to use everyday language in describing daily events, and a future where Marijuana has as much stigma associated with it as caffeine.
Mod note: Stay on topic and stop the personal attacks and bickering.
As long as we’re being so particular about language in this thread, the saying is “love of money is the root of all evil.” It’s from somewhere in the Epistles.
Does that mean that love_of_money^2 is all_evil?
My personal interpretation is “if there is money, expect evil.”.
I imagined that after talking about her activism with her boss and finding out that they weren’t going to have her on air if she did it, they agreed on her stepping down that day. Then she decided she didn’t like the language they had decided on.
I just did a quick search and I found Timothy 6:10. I’m not trying to defend myself as I would be surprised if I got it right. I found variations though, such as “money is the root” and “money is a root” but all included “the love of money” though.