-98?

How?

Mobile data connections were dogshit even here in Finland up until late 00’s.

You know what’s another really edgelord (not “edge lord”) thing?

To not answer questions put to you after you pretend to be a master debater.

Perhaps it’s because you literally can’t answer any of those questions, because they show what a bad faith actor you are.

No answers about the books, after having asked for them. Have you read the list of books you linked? Ofc you haven’t. You yourself admit you asked for books I had read, then somehow think a list of books from an Amazon search is related?

The wars for drugs weren’t wars on drugs, but for them, silly.

All in all, you need to up your game. (Thinking you “win” a debate by loudly yelling "fallacy! Hahahah, so good)

A “war ON drugs” is a bit different from “a war FOR drugs”. Perhaps you don’t speak English?

The opioid wars weren’t wars ON drugs.

Genuinely I wonder how people like you aren’t ashamed to post. Genuinely baffles me.

You don’t even read the comments you reply to. Vice laws have been tried several times in history.

You just don’t know your fucking history, yet you’re childish enough to argue me without even having a fucking point. It’s pathetic.

It’s generally accepted the war on drugs “really” began in the 70’s, in the form it is today.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs

The term “war on drugs” was popularized by the media after a press conference, given on June 17, 1971, during which President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “public enemy number one”. He stated, "In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive. … This will be a worldwide offensive.

This is evident from a whole lot of historic facts — all of which you’re unaware of, obviously.

Why do you believe that anti-drug propaganda only began in the 20th century

Show me a single piece of drug propaganda earlier than the 20th century.

Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?

I do, you don’t.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen

a day or so about drug liberalisation.

But you’re pretending we’re not arguing over drug “liberalisation”, so which is it? Am I arguing with you over that, or something else?

The only point of disagreement is

So you get to ignore all the stupid mistakes you made, and say what the conversation is about? Seems like you haven’t had any conversations in real life…

I think you need to work on your persuasive writing and debating skills

Oh God, more of this. It’s so clear what you value and what you pretend to be. Like when you thought that you’d win an argument by yelling out “fallacy”, as if that meant that another person has to be wrong. Showing so clearly that you think that is an incredibly clear sign of how immature you are, philosophically.

You’re pretending you don’t know what an implication is (while still arguing based on what you think I implied), you’re pretending like drug wars didn’t start in the 20th century, and you’re pretending you didn’t say all the stupid shit you did. So, what do you think of the book? (Which you haven’t read, like you’ve not read any others on the subject either.)

Quite frankly, I thank you for the entertainment.

You never named 10 books, while I provided a source for over 200.

And what exactly does this prove? That you know what Google is? Are you pretending you weren’t asking for 10 books I had read on the subject? But, you just admitted you asked for it because you wanted to know what I’d read, so you obviously didn’t want a googled list of books, which you then provided yourself? Continuing with your asinine prescriptive bullshit, but not applying it to yourself? Seeing as how I never said “unrestricted access to any drug.”

Oh look! More projection!

Oh look, a kid pretending he understands psychology!

and yet I have never made a claim otherwise.

Pretending like you don’t understand what an implication is. Very mature, indeed.

You should probably stop serial editing everyone of your comments.

Oh no, I made a typo! Nothing screams “chronically online edgelord” (that’s how you spell “edgelord”) just like thinking that editing a comment is somehow bad.

You try all the most edgelord things, like screaming “fallacy” to win a debate. Remember that? Remember when you tried winning an argument by calling it fallacious, like the edgelord you are, who has never picked up a book on philosophy, yet wants to pretend online he understands rhetoric.

All in all you need to up your game.

I haven’t laughed that hard in months

See, but you are wrong, and now you’re trying to pretend you’re not, because you’re a ~20 something male who can’t accept when they make a mistake, and they always have to learn through being humiliated, than being ashamed for a few weeks, and then not doing that same mistake publicly again.

Remember the time you actually linked “that’s a fallacy” , thinking naming a fallacy means you “win” a debate, when you presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong, when obviously, that’s not the case.

Hey how about that time when you thought that saying “fallacy” wins you an argument?

Remember, you larping someone who understand how debating works? Remember that? Oh you don’t, because it’d show just how much of a master debater you are?: )

No, he’s not agreeing with me.

You don’t understand the propaganda.

Do you think that if everyone who agreed on cannabis being mostly harmless, we’d still have cannabis prohibition? Ofc not.

And cannabis isn’t even causing the most harm. We can actually get rid of drug cartels and make hundreds of billions of dollars in tax money by legalising drugs, but the efforts to do so are slowed by fucknuts like you and him who don’t realise that you can slow something down even when you pretend to agree with it.

What do you believe is the difference between “Prohibition of all drugs to be lifted” and “unrestricted access to any drug”?

You should check a dictionary. A prohibition is when something is illegal to sell. Do you think if something isn’t illegal, it’s unrestricted? Why would you think that?

You’d rather chew your own leg off than answer my question from the previous comment. That’s how strong the propaganda is, and I don’t know why it affects you so much.

I will pose my questions one more time.

And I stand by that.

I’ve answered your questions, but you’re not asking them for any reason. You’re pretending to ask them for a reason. Honestly, what are you, like, 20? This is insanely childish.

#Show me drug propaganda from the 19th century please. I’ll wait right here. You will desperately google some, but the only thing you’ll find from the 19th century is drug adverts, not propaganda. There are a few cases in history of so called vice laws, but prohibition =/= drug propaganda. Perhaps you didn’t realise that, huh?

Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?

I do yes. You do not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen

Why did you ask for me to mention ten books when you can’t address a single one that I name? Perhaps because you’re a sort of silly little boy who’s pretending to know a lot about something they don’t, thinking that because they’ve smoked weed, they’re not “against the prohibition”, while actively fighting it.

Anyone supporting the prohibition of drugs is acting against the well-being of society in general. That’s an indisputable fact I can and have backed with peer-reviewed studies.

edit oh that’s a fun comment about “projection” from some teen who thinks he “wins” debates by saying “that’s a fallacy” as if you’ve ever opened a philosophy book :DD let alone understood the first thing about psychology. you’ve tried your teenage gotchas several times and i’ve shown you how much of a tit you were being and wow, you instantly stop with the argument I made you feel stupid about.

women whose life would be threatened by carrying to term, due to medical complications.

• women who were pregnant through rape and/or incest.

Holy fuck a Romanian dictatorship had it better than some states in the US

My take?

It’s none of my fucking business how other people procreate, how about that?

Amerikanske tilstande" which translates to something like “conditions like America”,

Ugh, wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.

But I’m sure you’re familiar with “Nordic crime drama”

I was very daunted by driving when I started, especially when I had to drive a really old clunky low-power diesel Mercedes with my overly critical dad and big brother yelling at me.

Didn’t take long for it to become second nature, and I actually drove taxis for several years.

It literally just takes a while for your brain to get accustomed to everything. Yes, youre right in that a manual can be a distraction from learning traffic, but it really doesn’t take long for the shifting to become very natural, and then you can pay attention to the traffic.

As for actual tips on the clutch, it’s not really as much a matter of millimeters, as it is about the balance between throttle and clutch. Don’t be afraid to give it a bit more gas to makeita sure you won’t stop the car even if you let go of the clutch slower. Yes it will sound a bit like a student driver, revving the car “needlessly”, but you are a student driver and it isn’t needless revving, because you’re still learning the feel for the clutch.

It also depend a lot on the make and model of the car the school has. It’s a bit of a personal preference, but clutches are really different in different cars. You might really like a 90’s Mercedes with a reeaally long clutch, but that too takes getting a bit used to. I remember the cars my car school had were fairly new Ford’s, and they had really short clutches. Annoyed me as well.

Honestly took me less than a year of driving and I knew how to shift without a clutch. Some really old 70’s sand lorries my dad used to drive didn’t have clutches, so he taught me how to (in some cars it works some don’t really like it, but basically you could do it in all manual cars, without damaging the gearbox if you do it properly); when accelerating, just as you let go of the throttle, like 0.5sec after that there’s a short period where you can just pull the gear to neutral without any resistance. That’s easy. Shifting into gear from neutral without clutch isn’t as easy, but in some cars, not much of a challenge. You need to rev the engine to match the rpm, but like with a short press of the gas pedal, which revs the rpm higher than it needs to, then when the rpm is coming down there’s a window where you can shift into gear really easily.

I ramble, you don’t need to thin about that.

I would suggest, if possible (idk if you have a learners permit or smth and can drive under parent supervision), to practice driving on highways and country roads for less traffic to learn the car better. If not, maybe ask your teacher on the next lesson if you could do that.

And if not, if you have to drive in the city, the most important is just to remember that the panic and rudeness you feel isn’t something which should make you hurry. People will be annoyed, but you have a right to annoy them, as you’re learning. It’s a shit thing, being a learning driver, but once you get your licence and get to take the car on a long drive yourself on some chill roads, you might actually enjoy the driving because the stress won’t be there. And then learning will become easier as well, when your heart isn’t beating through your chest with someone watching over you.

Just keep at it. You know what to do. Now it’s just a bit of repetition.

Edit oh and ask anything if you like, 3rd gen taxi driver, drove since 2007 (not driving currently). No stupid questions exist. So anything at all, go ahead.

They are really bad example of “those that fail to learn from history…”

Except I did answer your questions. Address the first book I’ve given, and then we’ll talk about nine others, mkay? Or was there perhaps zero reason for you to ask them, because you were asking in bad faith and had no response to when me offering actual literature as an answer, and now you’re just pissy about it?

No, I don’t agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society

Then you’re either ignorant of the subject, or directly benefitting from the prohibition. There’s simply no other alternative. The prohibition of drugs is harmful to society.

What I do believe is drugs should be available for use by consenting adults in a heavily regulated market coupled with intense social safety nets to deal with drug use related problems.

That is them being legal. I never said “unrestricted access to any drug”, did I? (But you won’t have the same asinine literal criteria for your own arguments as you’re trying to do with mine, showing yet another measure of pretentiousness.)

This edit is hilarious as well. Made especially funny by the fact that no one is arguing for drug prohibition.

You’re arguing against the facts of the matter, and now pretending like you don’t know that you’ve only now stated your opinion on the matter, and clearly argued against me, who made his stance very clear. You’re just so pretentious it twists my stomach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

would prevent Elon from running for president.

Not native-born though

That’s a bit like saying “I can’t be racist, I’m black”. I know there are people who believe it, but it doesn’t make it true, does it?

I answered your points, but all you keep doing is larping an intellectual. Why did you ask for 10 books on the subject? Because you wanted to know if the situation is as I say it is. I link a book saying it definitely is. You have a tantrum.

So you definitely agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted, for the good of society?