What I Realized Today: A Gift From Marijuana

It's a rare sight when I facepalm werts, but...=/

Damn I'm not even high anymore Mad

_________________

BFLK.Alpha

	BFLK wrote:
	Damn I'm not even high anymore

R.I.P. The THC that used to be in the Loser's head.

What specifically was worthy of facepalming? I argued a point and am currently awaiting a response. My point is logical and articulate. O_O

_________________

Correction:

Gaga's voice is not a circle inside a square pulsing with color. Last night, during a high I realized it is a swirl of colors all bent on trying to run away from each other, but ending up being a hurricane of colors instead.

was waiting for stas to post again. And the very fact that he was experiencing a state of altered perception is why said observation is invalid. You don't trust the spedometer when it says 100 mph and you're in park.

_________________

	Xor_90 wrote:
	was waiting for stas to post again. And the very fact that he was experiencing a state of altered perception is why said observation is invalid. You don't trust the spedometer when it says 100 mph and you're in park.

But I don't think that's what Werts is debating. I'm too lazy to go back to re-read everything, but I think he was actually debating you saying that because I was in a different dimension, you automatically assume my conclusion is wrong.

As he said, if Einstein was tripping or high and realized how the planets rotated around, it would not be automatically incorrect - just a very high chance that it is. When the psychoactive wears off, he tests his observation - they might or not be right; just because he got an idea when he had an altered perception, does not automatically mean it's not right.

I think I'm starting to repeat myself =/

No one cares you're high.

_________________

	Quote:
	Redwards: everyone in the world Redwards: is like Redwards: conencted Redwards: to each other Jon Jern: kay Redwards: with like computers Redwards: thats like cool

Thanks Sherlock Holmes.

stasik50 wrote:

But I don't think that's what Werts is debating. I'm too lazy to go back to re-read everything, but I think he was actually debating you saying that because I was in a different dimension, you automatically assume my conclusion is wrong.

As he said, if Einstein was tripping or high and realized how the planets rotated around, it would not be automatically incorrect - just a very high chance that it is. When the psychoactive wears off, he tests his observation - they might or not be right; just because he got an idea when he had an altered perception, does not automatically mean it's not right.

I think I'm starting to repeat myself =/

1. You were not in a different dimension, your brains various nervous receptors were receiving garbled signals.

2. I said your observation was invalid, not wrong. Scientific process, if you can come to the same conclusion under controlled circumstances, then the observation is likely correct. However, this isn't a truly relevant comparison, your observation was a matter of opinion, not fact.

I say again, because you were high, your opinion was invalid.

_________________

Xor_90 wrote:

stasik50 wrote:

But I don't think that's what Werts is debating. I'm too lazy to go back to re-read everything, but I think he was actually debating you saying that because I was in a different dimension, you automatically assume my conclusion is wrong.

As he said, if Einstein was tripping or high and realized how the planets rotated around, it would not be automatically incorrect - just a very high chance that it is. When the psychoactive wears off, he tests his observation - they might or not be right; just because he got an idea when he had an altered perception, does not automatically mean it's not right.

I think I'm starting to repeat myself =/

1. You were not in a different dimension, your brains various nervous receptors were receiving garbled signals.

2. I said your observation was invalid, not wrong. Scientific process, if you can come to the same conclusion under controlled circumstances, then the observation is likely correct. However, this isn't a truly relevant comparison, your observation was a matter of opinion, not fact.

I say again, because you were high, your opinion was invalid.

Pwnt.

_________________
Steam ID and gamertag: Redwards34

Today I tried ingesting hand sanitizer. Listening to "Evactuate the Dancefloor" by Cascada was amazing. and then the high ended and i cried. :/

/\
||
Still invalid

Try Bengay on your genitals next time, the endorphin release will make you trip balls(schrodingers pun: a pun which is both intended and un-intended simultaneously)

_________________

2. I said your observation was invalid, not wrong. Scientific process, if you can come to the same conclusion under controlled circumstances, then the observation is likely correct. However, this isn't a truly relevant comparison, your observation was a matter of opinion, not fact.

I say again, because you were high, your opinion was invalid.

First of all, let us define this: what is the difference, in your definition, between "invalid" and "wrong"?

When the psychoactive wears off, he tests his observation - they might or not be right; just because he got an idea when he had an altered perception, does not automatically mean it's not right.

I agree with Stas here.

I agree with Xor, now, in the sense that perceptions of reality generally cannot be trust under a high, but you go too far in saying that any thought process that enters the brain during a high is "invalid". If Stas thought of the same exact idea outside of the high, does that make it invalid? No, not according to even your definition. So, contrary to your words, from this deduction of your argument you appear not to be saying the IDEA is invalid - just the state of mind Stas was at the time.

Let's say I imagine Obama smiling. I see an image of him smiling in my head. I'm not high. Is this image I see invalid? It may not physically exist, but it exists in my mind.

It's ignorant to 100% rule out cognitive observations simply because of an altered state of mind.

_________________

Xor_90 wrote:

stasik50 wrote:

But I don't think that's what Werts is debating. I'm too lazy to go back to re-read everything, but I think he was actually debating you saying that because I was in a different dimension, you automatically assume my conclusion is wrong.

As he said, if Einstein was tripping or high and realized how the planets rotated around, it would not be automatically incorrect - just a very high chance that it is. When the psychoactive wears off, he tests his observation - they might or not be right; just because he got an idea when he had an altered perception, does not automatically mean it's not right.

I think I'm starting to repeat myself =/

1. You were not in a different dimension, your brains various nervous receptors were receiving garbled signals.

2. I said your observation was invalid, not wrong. Scientific process, if you can come to the same conclusion under controlled circumstances, then the observation is likely correct. However, this isn't a truly relevant comparison, your observation was a matter of opinion, not fact.

I say again, because you were high, your opinion was invalid.

1. You couldn't possibly have believed I meant I was in a parallel universe?

2. Go ahead - discuss it with Werts.

The first C404 argument in months.

Keep on fighting guys.

_________________

	Quote:
	Redwards: everyone in the world Redwards: is like Redwards: conencted Redwards: to each other Jon Jern: kay Redwards: with like computers Redwards: thats like cool

Thanks Sherlock Holmes.