Quote from: DemonicChronic on May 01, 2015, 10:18:48 PM

However, I can't tell you exactly why that thread is offensive, as I don't necessarily take offense to it. It simply has the potential to offend

That's exactly why what you're saying makes NO sense. ANY thread at all has that potential. What you're saying is forums shouldn't exist, and every topic should be locked because it might upset some whiner.

Quote

Go ahead and continue making insults, but they aren't helping to convey your perspective even the tiniest bit better. All you're really doing with them is displaying a pettiness that makes it increasingly harder to take you seriously.

What insults? Hey, say you're offended by them and then you can just ban me. I don't need help conveying my points. The forum did that for you by abandoning this freaking dump. Stop taking it personally. I'm not at all saying it's your fault, it's been this way since I got here. I don't care if some pathetic squirts take me seriously. They've given me NO reason to take them seriously.

The only reason trans insults/jokes are taken seriously now is because of reasons I've explained to you again and again and again. This is getting laughable now. Why would I take any of this personally? Haha nigga I'm done. This is the internet. I don't even know you, much less get offended by your opinions. Like I said you aren't influential enough to dissuade me. Hell this could all just be a fat ruse and I'm just giving you piles of food here. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and replied so that anyone interested could see why things are the way they are, whether or not you specifically care. I feel like the staff needs to be more open about how we work really. But I'm tired now and need to sleep soon.

You're one stubborn mofo, that's for sure. Like you don't take us pathetic squirts seriously but you spent the time to complain. . . If you aren't a ruseman then you're obviously concerned with how we conduct ourselves.

W/e I'm done. This site is a joke. The staff is incompetent. Sep7 is dead.

Word.

Buy one.

It appears as though you should.

Eh, been over a month since I cut my hair shorter but w/e.


Maybe bumping this will entice someone else to post a flick.

Oh no, I have been subjected to moderator abuse with every ban I've received, so you can't make such false claims with me. Not you specifically, you're one of the best mods here, probably attributed to you not doing much. While it is my opinion, the way things are now is only backing up my points.

And that's precisely the problem. How can you say there's not selective moderation, and then immediately explain how there is selective moderation? Why do they deserve special treatment? How is insulting some shemale worse than insulting my choice to use cannabis? It isn't. Period. Nothing subjective about it. Period. It's hypocritical and it's why people are pissed with this site and why it CONSTANTLY has drama. How do you not see that?

You're right. People can be perfectly happy in a cess pool circle-jerk without having to think or be challenged, but is that what YOU want this forum to remain? If so, that's perfectly fine, I simply want nothing to do with it if that's the case. Just admit that's what it is if that's what it's going to be. Stop putting on a show.

I'm not overly critical of this community, nor am I prone to forming very strong opinions in general, for the most part. I enjoy this board. Enough to have accepted the position of moderator. However, this isn't the most important thing in the world to me and I don't spend the effort to try and pick it apart so that it might conform to my vision of what an optimal forum is.

I've explained to you that we, as staff, have to make compromises with moderation. But we don't act on the basis of favoritism. There are logical reasons for the compromises we make and, generally, issues are discussed with multiple mods before any action is taken, so long as they are not very miniscule. I never once claimed that there isn't absolutely any selective moderation, only that the nature of that selective moderation is founded in logic. The logic in keeping major bouts of drama to a minimum. And it is not based on specific members, but rather, specific infractions that any and every member would have to answer for in the event they had made any one of those infractions.

Enough of this, I have explained to you multiple times now what the reasoning is for the way moderation works on this board. You don't have to keep telling me that you think the staff are bad at what they do, nor that the site is failing due to it. I understood your view from the beginning. I only tried to give you a more in depth look on how and why things work the way they do so that you might form a better informed opinion. You have made it abundantly obvious that you disagree entirely and will continue to do so despite my explanations so I am done with this redundant debate.

Go ahead and tell us the staff are incompetent, I don't care. Regardless of your perspective, this community will continue to move forward. You aren't influential enough to dissuade me from my much more informed point of view, and by the looks of it, nor the other staff as well. I won't hold that against you though.

Leaving forum moderation up to a vote is a sign it's already a failure. You're running a forum, not a popularity contest.

That is merely your opinion. As much as people like to say we're Nazi's, we aren't actually tyrants and like to give the community some degree of input on what the nature of this board will ultimately be. 

Then why ban only SOME insults? Let people use the mute option if they're so weak and emotional.

Again, as I explained, some insults were decided to be taken more seriously due to the overwhelming amount of drama that resulted from them.

You have a point, but a rapid drop in activity like this one has had is not normal, and a massive sign it's a failure.

I've seen boards bounce back from much worse actually. Some still alive to this day. It's not exactly a sign of failure as you are simply projecting your own personal perspective. There are no physical laws of the universe that dictate the exact nature of internet forums, and you cannot accurately measure and predict how they turn out.

Okay, but that wasn't what I meant. I don't deny that our moral intuitions have an emotional bedrock, but it has nothing to do with recognizing a practice as moral or immoral on strictly rational grounds. You can acknowledge something as immoral without having any emotional attachment to it, and can proceed to oppose it based solely on your desire to be rational.

If we merely let our emotions dictate ethics, then it wouldn't be the subject of intellectual inquiry that it is.

I don't mean to imply that emotions are the entire basis for ethics. What I mean to convey is that empathy is involved in their conditioning along with everything else that is so it shouldn't just be ignored.

Quote from: DemonicChronic on May 01, 2015, 06:04:59 PM

Quote from: Pendulate on May 01, 2015, 05:49:49 PM

Why does it matter whether the animal is endangered or not? It seems to illustrate that people are only concerned about animal welfare if it stands to benefit them in some way, rather than genuinely caring about the animal's interests.

Not everyone cares about an animal's interests or well-being in a specific sense. Maybe they don't want an entire species to disappear but they might not necessarily care about a single animal.

Human's only have to capacity to care for so many beings, and have varying degrees of empathy.


I remember seeing a vid recently about animals being frozen solid in ice in flash freezes. It showed a few foxes as well as a moose. I felt more for the foxes because they're one of my favorite animals, however even though I realize the moose suffered through the same experience, I didn't feel nearly as much for it. I have a fairly good degree of empathy but it doesn't always apply towards everything and everyone, I'm not a flowing well of it, and I'm not afraid to admit that.

I get that. But I'm talking about the issues that we can actively choose to support or oppose. Losing sleep over things I have no power to change is fruitless, but when I'm presented  with the option to either support or oppose something (such as killing animals for their skin) I will oppose it, to little detriment of my own. This has nothing to do with some theoretical "empathy limit" that we have. It's about making rational, ethical choices in my life, regardless of how it makes me feel emotionally.

You say you oppose it, but if you aren't actively taking measures to prevent it, are you really opposing it, or do you merely just disagree with it?

Empathy has a lot to do with it, actually, as making a conscious decision to oppose killing of any kind is often the result of ideals and ethics rooted in the emotions felt as a result of empathy for those being killed. It's an integral part of the interdependent system that is your personality/identity.

Why does it matter whether the animal is endangered or not? It seems to illustrate that people are only concerned about animal welfare if it stands to benefit them in some way, rather than genuinely caring about the animal's interests.

Not everyone cares about an animal's interests or well-being in a specific sense. Maybe they don't want an entire species to disappear but they might not necessarily care about a single animal.

Human's only have to capacity to care for so many beings, and have varying degrees of empathy.


I remember seeing a vid recently about animals being frozen solid in ice in flash freezes. It showed a few foxes as well as a moose. I felt more for the foxes because they're one of my favorite animals, however even though I realize the moose suffered through the same experience, I didn't feel nearly as much for it. I have a fairly good degree of empathy but it doesn't always apply towards everything and everyone, I'm not a flowing well of it, and I'm not afraid to admit that.

Quote from: DemonicChronic on May 01, 2015, 05:10:06 PM

Quote from: Camnator on May 01, 2015, 05:01:08 PM

Interesting. Have you tried different ways of using? Maybe I'm just alone here, but cannabis never made me hungry. In fact, I'd often stop being hungry after I began using, and it helped me lose 95 pounds.

It's not just about being hungry, it's mainly the fact that cannabinoids can inhibit digestive motility ergo food takes longer to move through your system. Since the condition I have is essentially a bacterial infection, the longer any food sits in my intestines, the longer the bacteria have to ferment it and produce excess gasses which cause me to bloat like a blimp. It also allows them to multiply even more since they are basically being fed, and their very presence causes inflammation in my intestines, as well as nutrient malabsorption.

Obviously, smoking anything in general can make heartburn worse, but that's not the biggest issue.

What is your current treatment? Is this going to be a permanent problem?

No if it was permanent then that would be very bad. The treatment, aside from taking antibiotics, is a change in diet, taking digestive enzymes and probiotics, and altering eating habits. Exercise helps as well. Eventually the 'bad' bacteria will be starved through diet changes and phased out by the probiotics.

Interesting. Have you tried different ways of using? Maybe I'm just alone here, but cannabis never made me hungry. In fact, I'd often stop being hungry after I began using, and it helped me lose 95 pounds.

It's not just about being hungry, it's mainly the fact that cannabinoids can inhibit digestive motility ergo food takes longer to move through your system. Since the condition I have is essentially a bacterial infection, the longer any food sits in my intestines, the longer the bacteria have to ferment it and produce excess gasses which cause me to bloat like a blimp. It also allows them to multiply even more since they are basically being fed, and their very presence causes inflammation in my intestines, as well as nutrient malabsorption.

Obviously, smoking anything in general can make heartburn worse, but that's not the biggest issue.

Basically, anytime they have a close up painted image of a character.

Quote from: Ayy Lemönao on May 01, 2015, 09:16:20 AM

Quote from: Camnator on May 01, 2015, 08:59:20 AM

Quote from: DemonicChronic on May 01, 2015, 08:50:01 AM

Compliments?

Stop this, this is awkward. We aren't used to this sort of thing,

I've never seen you abuse your power. I've never seen anyone complain about you before, either. We love you!

probably because he doesn't do anything

Cannabis is now proven to cause botched lobotomies in people with orange text.

Well good thing I'm sober.

Quote from: DemonicChronic on May 01, 2015, 08:25:36 AM

I mean if there were enough studies proving the benefits then I suppose, but otherwise I know from experience how much strain they can put on perception and conception, while they can change the way you look at the world and your life, some people just aren't suited for it and take away nothing but bad emotions and thoughts from the experience.

Although, a lot of the time that seems to be the result of taking a bunk dose or too much of a legit one so I guess if it was regulated then the chances of that would be reduced.

Do you feel that way about shrooms? Especially considering they are nearly impossible to become addicted to.

I'm not concerned with addiction. And psilocin has given many I know extremely 'crushing' experiences before, myself included. And I know that not everyone has to right mindset to handle that.

Like I said though, regulation would reduce the chances of that happening, however the possibility remains. People need to understand that psychedelics, while they can be fun, are much more than just 'have a good time' party drugs, and the psychedelic experience can be very overwhelming. I just think people should understand them before they jump right into taking them.

For example, you have kids smoking salvia thinking it's gonna be some kind of fun trippy high, and they end up having experiences as intense as what DMT would give you. And when they come down, they just aren't the same. The average person will get over an experience like that, but some people hold onto it for a long time.

I guess the point I'm trying to get at, is that they shouldn't really be treated as recreational substances, and if they're ever going to be used medicinally then it should be handled in a way that is different from marijuana. A way to help prevent the 'let celebrate and get high' mentality that surrounds other drugs.

I mean if there were enough studies proving the benefits then I suppose, but otherwise I know from experience how much strain they can put on perception and conception, while they can change the way you look at the world and your life, some people just aren't suited for it and take away nothing but bad emotions and thoughts from the experience.

Although, a lot of the time that seems to be the result of taking a bunk dose or too much of a legit one so I guess if it was regulated then the chances of that would be reduced.