THUNDERDOME!!

[Honeybee]

Thank you for this post Harvonsgard. Strangely as I get older my skin must be getting thinner for why else am I up at 5am today I love coming on this forum but was thinking of becoming a reader not a poster but you and Gandalf have restored the belief of this long time forum reader, that this is the best forum I have been on
ps Your avatar would be completely wasted on an iphone

[Harvonsgard]

When I'm in the right (or wrong - depending on your stance, haha) mood you can somewhat ruffle my feathers by speaking about how awesome governments, taxes and the military are/is but besides that, I have elephant skin with added lotus effect.
I guess it's caused by the time when I worked in print and went to trade school. We had a lot of communication theory and psychology as part of graphic design and human resource lectures. All the stuff we learned about - like Schulz von Thun, Watzlawick, ... - was kinda obvious but I never really thought about how this effects human relations and the troubles we go through caused by that. Plus I know how bad I can get a point across sometimes, despite actually putting effort into my written and spoken communication, to be as clear as possible. So much stuff is easily chalked up to misunderstanding - especially on the web, where different folks from different cultures, languages, walks of life, professions and whatnot come together.
Reading about how flawed our brain, perception and memory is helped me as well to realize there never really is a reason to be offended/mad on the web - or afk either for that matter .

[STLBluesNut]

......

well, i have a lot of thoughts on this but i think we will just let it be here.

[STLBluesNut]

hey harv,

a time or 2 i have wondered what your name meant, if anything. just a few minutes ago, i was curious enough to type it into google. it didnt say anything about the meaning of harvonsgard, actually the top results were for a drug, harvoni lol. down the page a bit it did link some things you posted an various places along with a link called solve harvonsgard. curious i clicked.

it took me to what appears to be your instagram page, at least some person with that name that posts playing cards. anyway, assuming it is yours, at the top it was in a different language that was definitly not german by my understanding of it. somewhere along the line, i got the impression that you were german. maybe you said you live in germany? just in this thread many posts back i said you were german, so i apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. the language appeared to be Scandinavian of some sort? does you name have a particular meaning?

it is probably my english speaking brain but for the longest time i read your name as havronsgard. maybe because im used to seeing ''hav'' more than ''harv''.

[GandalfPC]

I don’t know about that instagram - hard to believe the harvonsgard I know was posting this:

(does seem I might be mistaken - I see he did post the original listing for this - live and learn )

Tórshavn is beautiful by the way - packing my bags now…

[Timmargh]

[...] along with a link called solve harvonsgard. [...]

You can't solve Harvonsgard; they're a puzzle that defies logic and reason.

[GandalfPC]

[Honeybee]

......

well, i have a lot of thoughts on this but i think we will just let it be here.

Oh I am so relieved

[GandalfPC]

IMG_9909.jpeg (194.48 KiB) Viewed 3321 times

[rousselle]

The UC software features a substitutinator that will automatically replace certain off-color words with "smurf." I didn't come up with that solution, but I think it's hilarious, and I may have added a word or two to the list of words to be smurferized over the years. It's a way to remind our membership not to take themselves too seriously, while at the same time, to not go around flaunting (North American) conventions of "polite discourse."

As a general rule, I hope that we can all remember that the real reason we're here is because we all share something very specific in common: we all think Daredevil is the best comic book-based series ever filmed for television, and we're all desperately worried about the possibility that Disney is going to find a way to smurf it up.

That said, I find it fascinating that on a /reddit forum, an alleged woman announced that she thinks there are fewer women collecting cards than men because women are more generally sexualized in card art. That statement says *so much more* about the person who posted it than about the community of card collectors. Or actual card art.

And saying that women aren't as likely to have hobbies or play games is demonstrably false. If the stereotypical chess player is some cranky ol' Russian grandpa, who is the stereotypical mah jong player? A cranky ol' Chinese grandma. Likewise, who are you more likely to meet at a bridge tournament? Who attends Bunko parties? If you aren't aware these things are still regular features in middle-class America, odds are you are a dude. Or you weren't invited.

It's obvious that the real reason there appear to be fewer women collecting playing cards than men is because they are generally better at hiding their insanity than men are.

My point is this: I hope Strag will continue to post here without trepidation. I hope we can share our love of playing cards with each other congenially. And I hope the Buffalo Bills will pull their collective heads out of their collective butts and win a smurfing Super Bowl before I die.

I'll settle for two out of three.

[STLBluesNut]

As a general rule, I hope that we can all remember that the real reason we're here is because we all share something very specific in common: we all think Daredevil is the best comic book-based series ever filmed for television, and we're all desperately worried about the possibility that Disney is going to find a way to smurf it up.

ah smurf, dont get me started on disney.

That said, I find it fascinating that on a /reddit forum, an alleged woman announced that she thinks there are fewer women collecting cards than men because women are more generally sexualized in card art. That statement says *so much more* about the person who posted it than about the community of card collectors. Or actual card art.

agree 100%

It's obvious that the real reason there appear to be fewer women collecting playing cards than men is because they are generally better at hiding their insanity than men are.

you really think it is only ''appears to be'' less women in the playing card hobby?

[Harvonsgard]

We are dabbling quite off-topic here for a thunderdome but if anything besides cards, UC is for a good side tracks, lel.

@rouselle -
Glad you don't take 3 outta 3 there, because the Bills thing won't happen until they fix their mental blocks which I deem unlikely because unfortunately some have it and some don't.

@STL -
It doesn't have any meaning besides me liking it typographically and phonetically. I like the pun @Timmargh mentioned though, haha.
The line attached to the profile mentioned, which is mine indeed, is from the Faroer Islands' national anthem. Which I only picked due to me liking it, and have no further connection to.
Even prior to the Snowden revelations and AI, I was and still am very opposed to sharing personal data on the web. I'm quite the opposite from being a mysterious fellow though, that's why I made statements and posts that lead you to the correct assumptions about my citizenship. But the web is unfortunately still not a place where personal information belongs imho, that's why I try to keep cards closer to my chest. Not to mention that nationality for me is the weirdest thing people identify themselves with so, I don't see me being a Kraut an important part of my indentity. I would lie if I say it doesn't has an imprint on me since it is the culture surrounding me - but yah, I couldn't care less about being a Картофель .

[Harvonsgard]

There are no cons to legalization. And hear me out - I'm not saying that there are no cons of drug consumption but in general, It's an utter joke that after thousands of years of human history there are still people who have the power to decide whether I'm allowed to smoke a herb or not. Same goes for same-sex marriage and alike. Same goes for the fruit of my labour. But I get it, the majority of humankind is still in a mindset of obidience to rulership.

[rousselle]

@rousselle -
Glad you don't take 3 outta 3 there, because the Bills thing won't happen until they fix their mental blocks which I deem unlikely because unfortunately some have it and some don't.

I knew you were right when you posted that, but I still has sadz over that.

[MagikFingerz]

There are no cons to legalization. And hear me out - I'm not saying that there are no cons of drug consumption but in general, It's an utter joke that after thousands of years of human history there are still people who have the power to decide whether I'm allowed to smoke a herb or not. Same goes for same-sex marriage and alike. Same goes for the fruit of my labour. But I get it, the majority of humankind is still in a mindset of obidience to rulership.

I haven't dove deep into studies and statistics, but it seems pretty clear that at least the pros outweigh the cons. Prohibition of drugs doesn't work any more than prohibition of alcohol did. People are going to do/get it anyway.

[Harvonsgard]

Prohibition of drugs doesn't work any more than prohibition of alcohol did. People are going to do/get it anyway.

Exactly. I still don't get why people would think making certain drugs illegal would solve a problem. Especially if these problems are rooted psychologically.

[STLBluesNut]

There are no cons to legalization.

here are a couple of the cons in my mind.
1. legalization obviously makes weed more readily available and sort of gives a govt and societal blessing. this is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, where i see the issue is that more people/certain types of people are more likely to be using more casually and driving under the influence. this is obviously a bad thing. results of a quick search below not sure how to insert picture right here.

dui.png (188.14 KiB) Viewed 3113 times

2. piggybacking on that, as far as i know, there is no field detection test for this. i skimmed through this article that has a bit of information on the topic https://www.meltzerandbell.com/news/do- ... detection/ . this not only presents a problem for prosecuting offenders but also presents a problem for false accusation as the standard field sobriety test is open to interpretation of results by officers on the scene. thc stays in the system for a long time and determining intoxication levels require much more expensive and invasive testing.

3. this can start a whole slippery slope thing. so now that weed is legal, what's next? i have already seen things of people discussing and/or pushing the legalization of things like shrooms and lsd trying to cite medical benefits. just like we have seen with other things, a certain procedure comes to mind, it was initially argued and legalized for specific sets of circumstances and over the years devolved into just a procedure on demand for basically any reason you want. some even tried to make cases that one should have days or weeks after birth to decide. i am not going to get into a discussion on that particular topic, i point it out as an example.

edit #4. now it seems i smell that shit everywhere i go. it is stronger and carries further than cigarette smoke or even a bbq. there have been nice weather days where i want to open up my windows but someone chiefing down the road makes my whole damn place smell like weed and it just lingers. some strong smells after a period of time can make me start to feel nauseous.

those are a few things off hand, perhaps if i researched it more or thought about it more i could come up with some others.

I haven't dove deep into studies and statistics, but it seems pretty clear that at least the pros outweigh the cons. Prohibition of drugs doesn't work any more than prohibition of alcohol did. People are going to do/get it anyway.

''People are going to do/get it anyway.'' i feel like this is a very poor argument, even in this case. i mean, we could apply this to anything. speed limits, assault, theft (california basically has done this and it isnt working out too well for them), murder. people are going to do it anyway, so smurf it, why have any laws. using this logic in this realm, would you feel the same about heroin, fentanyl, etc? why dont we just have heroin and heroin supplies vending machines? lets put one right in front of your house. i mean, people get it anyway. i understand the logic in what you are trying to say but i dont think it is good reasoning. this seem akin to the argument some used of people are going to do it might as well legalize and tax it. i suppose if we are going to do that we could sell tax stamps to hunt humans, maybe take death row inmates and charge a fee for people to come murder them. they are going to be killed anyway, may as well make some money and let murders get it out of their system. i realize i am over exaggerating. using hyperbole? https://ethicsalarms.com/rule-book/unet ... nceptions/ this addresses this argument, sort of, i think. (an interesting read for sure. applies more to ethics but has a bit of philosophy. i couldnt find, quickly, a direct article for ''People are going to do/get it anyway.'' this is adjacent at least and first on the list in the article. lol, after reading more of this article, it would appear i am guilty of using the reverse slippery slope here.)

''I haven't dove deep into studies and statistics, but it seems pretty clear that at least the pros outweigh the cons." i wouldn't be too inclined to disagree with this. it does seem for some conditions it is helpful. it does seem that in the grand scheme of things the ''high'' doesnt casue many issues with violence or other extreme behavior. if i understand correctly, long term use can cause some adverse physical and mental health issues. i can see the argument that alcohol may be worse. i have not used weed in probably 20 years. the last time i used weed was months after i started having anxiety/panic attacks and smoking caused probably the worst anxiety attack i have ever had and i have no touched it since. however, i would say personally, if i had the choice and desired to get inebriated, i would prefer smoking weed over drinking. milder, more mellow feeling without a hangover.

so like i said in the other thread, i think there are pros and cons and i am not wholly for or against legalization.

[GandalfPC]

I wrote a grow simulator (simleaf) so you can figure where I stand - feel free to PM me with any issues you may have with your home grows should it be legal in your local to grow

[STLBluesNut]

I wrote a grow simulator (simleaf) so you can figure where I stand

you programmed a weed growing sim so others can figure out where you stand on weed? thats an odd way to go about it. you could just say you are for legalization really.

[GandalfPC]

Well - I wanted to not only say I was for legalization but to offer my assistance with anyones grow without specifically stating whether I have grown but rather implied knowledge due to having “written a book” on the subject. I make no current claim as to my personal use of the substance - as this is the internet and that would be private - if it be

[MagikFingerz]

''People are going to do/get it anyway.'' i feel like this is a very poor argument, even in this case. i mean, we could apply this to anything. speed limits, assault, theft (california basically has done this and it isnt working out too well for them), murder. people are going to do it anyway, so smurf it, why have any laws. using this logic in this realm, would you feel the same about heroin, fentanyl, etc? why dont we just have heroin and heroin supplies vending machines? lets put one right in front of your house. i mean, people get it anyway. i understand the logic in what you are trying to say but i dont think it is good reasoning. this seem akin to the argument some used of people are going to do it might as well legalize and tax it. i suppose if we are going to do that we could sell tax stamps to hunt humans, maybe take death row inmates and charge a fee for people to come murder them. they are going to be killed anyway, may as well make some money and let murders get it out of their system. i realize i am over exaggerating. using hyperbole? https://ethicsalarms.com/rule-book/unet ... nceptions/ this addresses this argument, sort of, i think. (an interesting read for sure. applies more to ethics but has a bit of philosophy. i couldnt find, quickly, a direct article for ''People are going to do/get it anyway.'' this is adjacent at least and first on the list in the article. lol, after reading more of this article, it would appear i am guilty of using the reverse slippery slope here.)

I agree with your own assessment that this is hyperbolic lol. What I mean by what I said is basically "legalize and regulate, rather than prohibit". I absolutely think that regulations are needed in this as well as everything you mention. But it's basically following the same principle as digital piracy: Make it (relatively) easy to obtain legally (Spotify or early Netflix), and people won't bother getting it in illegal ways. For those who are going to obtain in one way or another (and that other way is always going to be there regardless of laws), then it's much better that they can go to a special shop and buy something they know is of good quality (ie safe).

You can't compare it to everything else, because not everything is as easy to obtain. As someone working in a high school, I know how easy MJ is to obtain.

[STLBluesNut]

still not sure i agree with your reasoning. as far as talking about physical items, there are a lot of easily obtainable items that are illegal and we could use your logic to make legal and regulate all of them and i dont think making the ease of procurement being where the line is drawn is very sound. i would say your anecdotal evidence of weed being easy to get is a matter of perception and your personal circumstance. i would argue that for someone else, meth, heroin, cocaine, etc could be easier to get than weed.

''For those who are going to obtain in one way or another (and that other way is always going to be there regardless of laws), then it's much better that they can go to a special shop and buy something they know is of good quality (ie safe).'' i maintain that, yes, this can be applied to nearly everything else and is not sound reasoning for the legalization of said thing/act. we could certainly "legalize and regulate, rather than prohibit", prostitution, fully automatic weapons (for normal citizens), pedophilia, etc. legalize and regulate whatever it is, just dont use people are going to do it anyway as an argument for doing so.

[Harvonsgard]

Leeeeel. Sure, allowing folks to do whatever they want to their own health/body is in some shape or form comparable to allowing pedophilia or hunting humans . Come on bud, it's hard to take any take serious when the arguement is that far away from reasonable logic and btw. that's not even hyperbole that's just a plain and simple strawmen.

For #1 - One statistic makes no arguement. You would have to compare all the traffic numbers (drunk driving, numbers of general accidents, numbers of cars on the streets and so on) to determine if there is a true causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Another thing is that you never know if someone who has caused an accident on weed wouldn't have caused the accident driving drunk if weed would be still illegal. Numbers games are boring.

For #3 - Yes, all drugs should be legal. (You've used hyperbole in the first part btw.) Making them illegal is just trying to cure a symptome while the root cause/sickness is still there. But I get it some don't truely emphasize and feel for the [insert any destructive drug here]-junky and don't want to help these folks in an open society, they just don't want to see the poor fellow on their doorstep.

Again, no other human has the right to tell me what to do with my own health/body. You don't rule over me, I don't rule over you. Easy as that. There were enough conflicts in the past caused by folks who think they know what is best for society. Can't we just stop thinking that life is quantifiable and that one thing is better than the other?

I get that boundries have their limited use but one day humankind should finally learn to ride life without training wheels. People should be able - when they leave mommy and daddy - to live without their new mommy and daddy called government. But no worries, I have time. In the grand scheme of things humankind is still basically in the toddler age compared to sharks or reptiles so, I'll try to not be too harsh.

P.S.: Select fire should definitely be available to civilians. Better having something you don't need, than needing something you don't have .

[STLBluesNut]

Leeeeel. Sure, allowing folks to do whatever they want to their own health/body is in some shape or form comparable to allowing pedophilia or hunting humans . Come on bud, it's hard to take any take serious when the arguement is that far away from reasonable logic and btw. that's not even hyperbole that's just a plain and simple strawmen.

i understand what you are saying here, i used those as extreme examples in the argument that it isnt sound to say well people are going to do it anyway so lets make it legal.

For #1 - One statistic makes no arguement. You would have to compare all the traffic numbers (drunk driving, numbers of general accidents, numbers of cars on the streets and so on) to determine if there is a true causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Another thing is that you never know if someone who has caused an accident on weed wouldn't have caused the accident driving drunk if weed would be still illegal. Numbers games are boring.

i dont now what those articles said. i personally didnt research the subject. it was a simple search result that had articles stating in the headline that crashes/fatalities have gone up for weed related accidents. i feel like that is a con of legalizing weed, whether or not you choose to take those statistics into account.

For #3 - Yes, all drugs should be legal. (You've used hyperbole in the first part btw.) Making them illegal is just trying to cure a symptome while the root cause/sickness is still there. But I get it some don't truely emphasize and feel for the [insert any destructive drug here]-junky and don't want to help these folks in an open society, they just don't want to see the poor fellow on their doorstep.

i understand this as well. i think we see this all the time, even in non drug related issues. however, i do not think making the drug readily available to these folks is helpful. this also goes to the point below. the problem i see with just allowing anyone to do any drug they like is that in X% of cases they become harmful or a drain to others or society, it doesnt just affect themselves. also, i dont think part of empathizing or feeling ''for the [insert any destructive drug here]-junky'' is making the drug available and enabling them to harm themselves and others.

Again, no other human has the right to tell me what to do with my own health/body. You don't rule over me, I don't rule over you. Easy as that. There were enough conflicts in the past caused by folks who think they know what is best for society. Can't we just stop thinking that life is quantifiable and that one thing is better than the other?

I get that boundries have their limited use but one day humankind should finally learn to ride life without training wheels. People should be able - when they leave mommy and daddy - to live without their new mommy and daddy called government. But no worries, I have time. In the grand scheme of things humankind is still basically in the toddler age compared to sharks or reptiles so, I'll try to not be too harsh.

P.S.: Select fire should definitely be available to civilians. Better having something you don't need, than needing something you don't have .

i agree with the ideals here, unfortunately, human nature seems to dictate that we need laws and rules. in reality, without government and laws/rules, you would still be living under laws and rules it would just be those of the strongest or most violent male (generally) of the group. it would be great if we could all just live peacefully with each other.

[Harvonsgard]

I've already explained this prior but I'm happy to say it again: Context matters. Magick pulled that arguement in the discussion about weed. What you did is a strawman arguement.
[The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X. This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.]
Magick (opposed to me) didn't say he's for legalizing all drugs due to that arguement and he certainly didn't say you should legalize everything.

Second, "I feel like ..." that's a huge problem at hand (and one off the mayor reasons I'm an anarchist and oppose democracy). You didn't actually look into the subject but feel like there is a con? Like do you wanna have an actual discussion about the topic or not?
I take your statistic into account but am aware of how statistics work. Explaining you how it works - e.g. pointing you to the bigger context and more numbers you would have to compare, before being able to draw a causation - does not mean I disregard the statistic. So before you can logically claim that's a con, you would have to prove the causation first.
I agree, that this would be a con if it would be a proven causation and not just a correlation or even just a coincedence.

Third, they already harm society and themselves. Why not takling the psychological and societal root cause, instead of making them jump through burning rings and make them go to shady fellows and financially supporting organised crime?
I mean what do you do to prevent your child from drowning? Prohibit it to ever go to the water or do you teach it how to swim?

Fourth, It's pretty contradicting to claim le government protects you from the law of the strongest when in fact the government is the strongest (and with all the spying on their own citizens as well the smartest/best informed) in the group.
Just because a bully doesn't beat you up everyday doesn't mean he's no bully. Even if he never beats you up because you're cool with the bully and you even share the extorted lunch money, still doesn't prove he's no bully.

[STLBluesNut]

Fourth, It's pretty contradicting to claim le government protects you from the law of the strongest when in fact the government is the strongest (and with all the spying on their own citizens as well the smartest/best informed) in the group.
Just because a bully doesn't beat you up everyday doesn't mean he's no bully. Even if he never beats you up because you're cool with the bully and you even share the extorted lunch money, still doesn't prove he's no bully.

as i correctly assumed, you are an anarchist. cool, to each their own. my point was even in anarchy there will be rules and ''laws'' to follow. i didn't say anything about the govt protecting from law of the strongest. if you got your anarchy wish there would still be those in power and enforcing rules on you, possibly, likely probably, more violently and brutally. with or without formal government, humans will always force rules on other humans. i wasnt trying to make a point that government, or the lack of, was either better or worse. depending on the government, it could be either.

the only way you could avoid this would be to find a way to be 100% solitary, even between just 2 people there would be rules and consequences.

curious, if you were 100% solitary there would be things you wouldn't do. even if self imposed, would those things be considered rules? for instance, you wouldnt shit on your pillow or where you kept your food, i would assume. would that be considered a rule? you could certainly do that i suppose and the only consequence would be having a shitty pillow. it wouldnt be written or formal but a restriction placed on yourself.

[Harvonsgard]

Anarchy doesn't mean no rules or laws. A common misconception. Just like the oh so boring and overused trope to use it as a synonym for chaos and/or mischief.

As a concept, anarchy is commonly defined by what it excludes. Etymologically, anarchy is derived from the Greek: αναρχία, romanized: anarkhia; where "αν" ("an") means "without" and "αρχία" ("arkhia") means "ruler".[2] Therefore, anarchy is fundamentally defined by the absence of rulers.
None of us is stupid enough to believe that there are no rules. Common rules of sociology, biology and physics obviously apply.

And yes, you writing, "without government and laws/rules, you would still be living under laws and rules it would just be those of the strongest or most violent male (generally) of the group." pretty much implies that you think government protects you from the law of the strongest otherwise your point would be - well, pretty pointless.

Doesn't matter anyways since we were at weed and you implied cons when there were none really proven from your side. Plus no counter for Magicks the pros outweight the cons. Just your personal distaste for the smell in your neighbourhood - which I can rely to btw. I dislike smoking myself and am an edibles advocate anyways but I still would die for the right to smoke that shit in front of my place and I even would allow folks that I invite to my property to smoke on my porch. Live and let live - a rule I love as an anarchist .

[th4mo]

Historically, has there ever been a large community (let's say 100,000 people or more) that has survived internally as an Anarchy for any reasonable amount of time?

[GandalfPC]

Bard fought me hard on getting any answer at all, but the best it managed:

Given the complexities of historical verification and defining "true anarchy," it's impossible to provide a definitive answer. However, in a purely speculative ballpark, considering the limitations mentioned earlier, a true anarchy exceeding 1,000 individuals likely wouldn't have lasted more than a few decades at most, potentially even less.

[Harvonsgard]

Would be dope to know Bard's reasoning for that claim.