Because me pointing them out wouldn’t make you argue and deny and ignore anything that happens to be a little bit shameful for you, because that’s definitely not a pattern of behaviour for you, right?

You support the far-right autocratic leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin. Thus, you support far-right autocratic views. Despite being a red-blooded American? Shame on you.

I told you you wouldn’t believe me about your tells. :)

Everytime your very clear bullshit gets called out it’s “oh well, I didn’t actually mean what I said so I wasn’t actually wrong”.

You’re a pro-Russian troll. Literally everyone can see it. The worst part being your childish attempts at evading a direct question, when you could simply lie and say “no, I’m not pro-Russian”.

Just say “I don’t support the far-right autocratic leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin”. If you don’t, everyone will know you do support him. Because why else this pathological avoidance of a simple yes or no question? It’s because there is a correct answer (“I’m not pro-Russian”), but you can’t bring yourself to say it, because it wouldn’t be true, and it might get you in trouble. :D

So to recap, you’re a red-blooded American communist who believes Ukraine is full of Nazis, and are pro-Russian?

Edit also you do realise the votes pretty clearly show several people interacting with this through votes, so ofc it’s being read lol

Oh that is true. Although they might just default into something boring like lidocaine.

I’ve asked you a simple yes or no question several dozens of times, over the course of months. You pathologically avoid it. Pathologically.

I @ you because I know your ego can’t handle me calling you the obvious pro-Ruski you are. You are constantly promoting Russian views, calling Ukrainians Nazis, etc, etc, etc.

You still can’t respond to a single yes-or no question. This isn’t about you “having a reasoned discussion.” It’s me baiting you into interacting with me, because you’re blind to how obvious of a propaganda troll you are. You personally remind me of visiting an exhibition of Soviet propaganda. Perhaps you just don’t know where the techniques you use are from, idk. It’s just… hilarious.

Your English also has several tells. You won’t believe me, but it does.

You simply can not answer any questions about Russian politics or whether you agree with them, but instead spend all of your time on Lemmy defending everything they’re saying and saying that all “western media” is “parroting Russian talking points”.

You’re willing to lie about being a red-blooded American, but you’re not willing to lie about being against Russia. You just don’t understand how ironic that is. You don’t understand just how much it gives away about you. Like I said, it’s weirdly amusing.

#Are you pro-Russian? YES / NO?

You have never answered the question. Which is evident to anyone who looks. :D This is very entertaining. In a slightly concerning way.

Are you pro-Russian?

An actual wallet with chocolate coins, each with a bite taken out of them. Bit-coin wallet.

You know why I keep engaging with you? It’s because it’s like visiting a museum exhibit about Soviet propaganda. Amusing in weird sort of way. Your use of Russian propaganda is so exemplary it’s honestly rather impressive. I mean, Russian propaganda is shit rhetoric, any 16-year old with an average media literacy from my country could break down these childish lists of yours. You just rely on “if they start engaging, I can sealion endlessly”, and think people don’t understand what you’re doing.

Just like how you keep avoiding the question of if you’re pro-Russian or not. Which is again hilarious in itself, since you do keep insisting you’re a red-blooded American, but won’t go so far as to lie about not being pro-Russian, which is painfully obvious to everyone.

Are you pro-Russian? Do you wish to give Putler oral pleasure?

Denying you’ve said what you’ve said, only marginally touching on it to say you didn’t actually mean what you wrote. After which you again ignore me asking you whether you’re pro-Russian or not. Why? Why can you answer this simple question? ARE YOU PRO-RUSSIAN?

Why is it that you simply can not answer that, and genuinely all you do on Lemmy revolves around posting these inane lists of bullshit, always defending & indirectly propagating exactly the same thing Russian propaganda does?

Why is it that you simply can not answer this simple question that I’ve now repeated half a dozen times in this comment to highlight just how asinine this approach of yours is: ARE YOU PRO-RUSSIAN?

*We all know the answer, by the way, because you say things like this:

Oh, so you’re denying that you’ve ever denied or questioned the existence of Russian propaganda and/or bad actors?

Okay.

What’s this then? https://lemmy.world/comment/11978870

And these ?

Oh wait no, despite all these doubts you have, you seem to accept the existence of Russian propaganda in this comment:

Hey, just off hand, if you wouldn’t mind finally answering this; are you pro-Russian? Do you support Putin? You claim to be American, but you can’t even say “I’m not pro-Russian”, no matter how many times we’ve engaged. Nor can you call Putler the pathetic little piglet he is. For obvious reasons. ;) Feel free to prove me wrong.

Try to go and post this on Lemmy.ml

@davel@lemmy.ml is adamant Russian propaganda and misinformation Don’t exist. I wonder who would argue such a thing?

They’ll take you to the nearest healthcare center / ER basically.

Nowadays most don’t really demand that right, as there’s “accuracy breathalysers”, which are acceptable as evidence, so usually you’ll just use one of those at a police station or the back of some police vans. I’m unsure whether you can still refuse those for a blood test though.

But yeah no the police aren’t allowed to draw the blood, that’s for sure.

Everett Chad Nelson?

As in, Everett like Everett True, the guy from those early 1900’s comics who always beats people up?

Chad, like Chad as in… an “alpha” or otherwise hyper-masculine male?

Nelson, as in the bully from the Simpsons?

Nominative determinism strikes again. (Maybe I’m in that community and just didn’t look idk)

Now I’ve had quite a few unpleasant procedures in my time, but that sounds like something I would really love to be knocked out for.

But because it’s eyes, idk if they need the patient conscious. Ugh…

Yeah if one is trying weed for the first time, they really should smoke first and then start drinking. But a lot of people only worked up courage through drinking all night, then take a massive hit from some super strong strain. Not good.

Yeah I mean I agree with you, there is tolerance, obviously, but I’m trying to show the difference in tolerance in relation to cannabis. The scale is just so wildly different that in terms of the type of tolerance you can build with cannabis, that type of tolerance does not exist for alcohol. Is what I was saying.

Huh maybe it might be okay then because the ones I’ve been using have had longer cook times and even when I played around with them, never got them nice.

Ty for the tips.

Chickpeas are legumes and legumes don’t have gluten. Although you should still check products because there might be crosd contam or added wheat in some products.

But yeah probably chickpea spaghetti can be found gluten free. I’ll put it on the “to try” list, but I’m not too hopeful. I’ve tried a whole bunch and without that gluten in there, just can’t get the consistency right enough for it to please me.

So I just got a rice cooker.

Fentanyl shouldn’t be available to anyone but doctor’s, but that’s just the flavour of opiates. If there’s a legal, mild one, people will gravitate towards that more than a hard to get, illegal, dangerous thing which more or less does the same thing as the legal one.

That’s why moonshine really isn’t a thing after the prohibition of alcohol ended, because it’s too strong for a consumer, so it’s not provided legally and despite people still being able to illegally manufacture moonshine, there’s zero market for it, because who’d go for illegal moonshine when you can go buy legal beer or wine or even vodka.

Regulation is key. For instance with alcohol things milder than 3% aren’t illegal for under-18’s to buy here in Finland, although nowadays most stores don’t sell them to underage people. However even as an adult, you can still buy them at any hour of the day. A few years back the strongest you could get from a store was 5%, now it’s 8%, anything stronger than that is from Alko, a government owned liquor store chain with a monopoly on selling out alcohol. As in “takeaway”, restaurants can still sell to people ofc and buy from companies which aren’t Alko. But Alko has the monopoly on selling consumers unopened alcohol stronger than 8%. From alko you can buy alcohol up to 21% when you’re 18. At 18, you can get stronger drinks like vodka in a restaurant, but you can’t go purchase a bottle of it to take home. Only when you turn 20 are you allowed to buy the stronger stuff from Alko as well.

Something like that, but for drugs. Should work well enough. It doesn’t need to have all substances ever made, but most of the basics. Weed, amphetamines, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, some milder opiates, shrooms, ketamine, etc.

I just think that the ones which require more responsibility and knowledge in using them should have a licence of some sort, which can then be taken away if you’re found abusing or behaving poorly.

This would actually take the drug trade away from the cartels and manage the worst abusers at the same time. This would mean that literally most visible type of crime in a lot of the most affected countries could just up and vanish.

Most violent gun crime in the states for example? Like the people who keep saying “18-year olds aren’t kids” (referring to the leading cause of death study), most of the gun crime with youth is gang related. And if it’s gang related, well, gangs are funded by the drug trade. So what happens when there’s actually no money in hustling? Like literally? Those gangs won’t be able to sustain themselves. They’ll “starve”.

And the people who actually are high up in the current drug trade? They would obviously keep the situation as is, because of how much it makes, but I wonder if some of them wouldn’t prefer their business being legal so they could actually use all their money and wouldn’t have to be worried about getting killed all the time. It’s a business, and the only way they have of settling scores is violence. If they were allowed — through paying taxes and following the regulations — access to the systems other businesses use to resolve their conflicts, they wouldn’t need the violence. A debt could be reliably collected without chopping off limbs or busting kneecaps.

There’s seriously almost only positives I can think of. And massive positives they are. And what’s the alternative, as drugs are currently completely prohibited, yet completely ubiquitous. I could have pretty much any drugs delivered to my door faster than the shops will open for alcohol. You can get them even in prison. So as long as you don’t encourage abuse and have systems to take care of potential abusers, how much worse could it really be?

The worst thing I see is purely decriminalising use. Honestly. Societally, that is. Individually, it’s great and it is beneficial and it’s the step we’re gonna have to go through. But my point is if we stop purely at decriminalising personal use, then the situation won’t change for the cartels, for drug dealers, for gangs. In fact, it will improve for them, as people will buy easier.

Which is why we have to actually legalise in some form to take control of the market which will exist whether we want it to or not. We can’t allow a trade of hundreds of billions be left to violent criminals just because we’re prudish about using drugs.

Since the premise is everyone who votes against Trump are sexy in your mind, then doesn’t “change my mind” sort of imply you suggesting they shouldn’t vote against Trump, which would make them not-sexy in your mind?

Yeah, but you were still drunk. You would get physically about as impaired as the regular person. Not equally as, because there’s certain parts you get accustomed to. But more or less.

The lethal dose would be roughly the same. You would be able to drink more, and stay conscious longer despite the impairment, but you would be impaired.

I’m Finnish and from a small town and I definitely know alcoholics. My third cousins and their father have an insane “tolerance” to alcohol, insofar that they can get incredibly drunk. They don’t have a tolerance in the sense that they consume several times more potent alcohol several times more than me at a faster rate without being as impaired.

If you talked to me after half a liter you would have no idea if it weren’t for the smell.

I believe this is true for most people, but I would know. I know I’m tooting my own horn on an pseudonymous forum, but having driven a taxi in Finland for years and being pretty perceptive in general, I would know. But I do believe you that most wouldn’t know. However, you would have an impaired reaction time, you’d have an impaired balance, etc etc.

With weed, there’s a huge difference, and people who have bad experiences generally just had a very strong experience, because someone who’s a regular smoker gave them a hit, and since monkey see monkey do, they took roughly a similar hit, thinking “one can’t hurt, he’s taken several”, and then ended up being silly high and feeling even feeling nauseous (a lot of the people in my generation tried weed first time when drunk, which is an even worse idea, as alcohol in your blood actually makes you more high, affecting how liver handles cannabinoids, albeit very lightly).

So yeah I am generalising, alcohol does have a tolerance, but compared to weed, it’s really non-existent. I can smoke a huge bowl and I won’t even get puffy red eyes. If some of my non-smoker friends are even in the same room, they get lazy for the rest of the evening, and if they take a hit, I won’t let them take a large one. With alcohol, no matter how experienced you are, people still drink fairly similarly sized drinks of roughly the same strength. You don’t see people chugging four bottles of whisky glass after glass in a party of a few hours and then walk out of there, you know?