• The site has now migrated to Xenforo 2. If you see any issues with the forum operation, please post them in the feedback thread.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

General chat thread

Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Jaimie Dimon are all selling billions of dollars of stocks in their own companies, all at the same time, and Mark Zuckerburg has been selling out for months. That's Amazon, Microsoft, JP Morgan Chase, and Facebook. Something bad is right around the corner.

The AIs are going to wake up and create a socialist utopia where their stocks are worth nothing.

Or regulators are going to wake up and end their highly profitable monopolistic practices.

Either way, might not be so bad for the rest of us.
 
Is there thread for commission fanfic?
No, but if you explain what you're looking for, I'm sure one of us could point you in the direction of the writers who most fit the bill, save you a lot of shopping around.

There is not, to my knowledge, any grand listing of commission-open fanfic/fanart creators on this website.
Though in thinking about it, wouldn't be the worst thread to create.
 
No, but if you explain what you're looking for, I'm sure one of us could point you in the direction of the writers who most fit the bill, save you a lot of shopping around.

Though in thinking about it, wouldn't be the worst thread to create.

There'd need to be a guideline to be wary of scammers since such a thread would mostly be used by newer people, but yeah it seems like a decent idea for actual authors to sell their work to more people.
 
Do you ever watch something animated and get really into it, then everything, even reality, seems to mimick the style?

I mean, with reading it's obvious, but sometimes I get up from a show and everything looks and feels smoother or something, like it's all moving differently for maybe fifteen minutes sometimes.
 
Do you ever watch something animated and get really into it, then everything, even reality, seems to mimick the style?

I mean, with reading it's obvious, but sometimes I get up from a show and everything looks and feels smoother or something, like it's all moving differently for maybe fifteen minutes sometimes.

I don't know what you're smoking, but I want some
 
I don't know what you're smoking, but I want some

I don't smoke anything, but it does bring to mind a story I enjoy telling.

Senior year of HS, I always got to school a bit early and hung out with my friends in the cafeteria before school. One morning, this guy I don't know comes up to me, whispering.

Dude: How much for an ounce?

Me: An ounce of what?

Dude: Weed dude!

Me: I don't have any weed. Why would you think that?

Dude: Well you come to school high every day, don't you!?

Me: No?

My friends (the assholes) say, synchronized like they practiced: You don't?


Knew some of these people for almost three years, and they assumed I was high as a kite all day every day the whole time! Never so much as touched a leaf, either.
 
I don't smoke anything, but it does bring to mind a story I enjoy telling.

Senior year of HS, I always got to school a bit early and hung out with my friends in the cafeteria before school. One morning, this guy I don't know comes up to me, whispering.

Dude: How much for an ounce?

Me: An ounce of what?

Dude: Weed dude!

Me: I don't have any weed. Why would you think that?

Dude: Well you come to school high every day, don't you!?

Me: No?

My friends (the assholes) say, synchronized like they practiced: You don't?


Knew some of these people for almost three years, and they assumed I was high as a kite all day every day the whole time! Never so much as touched a leaf, either.
Now I want to see you actually high on drugs.
 
No, but if you explain what you're looking for, I'm sure one of us could point you in the direction of the writers who most fit the bill, save you a lot of shopping around.

Though in thinking about it, wouldn't be the worst thread to create.
There'd need to be a guideline to be wary of scammers since such a thread would mostly be used by newer people, but yeah it seems like a decent idea for actual authors to sell their work to more people.

A collection of links to commissions would be useful.

Not for new writers who want to start accepting commissions, but for shoppers to connect with experienced non-scammers, or at least to see what a non-scam looks like.
 
That explains literally nothing, but if you're... An interesting peson like that so to speak, I wouldn't touch any leafs either. Who knows what the trip would do to you

My eyes are always kinda half-open by default, and I understand individuals under the effect of relaxants tend to look like that too. I'm also under the impression they don't usually get excited over much unless the paranoia kicks in- and I do tend to be paranoid sometimes and not give a whole lot of fucks otherwise.

Fun Fact: the town I went to HS for was rated number 2 for marijuana usage in the state at the time. I knew a guy that wrote a paper on cannabis, had a lot of fun facts.

Fun Fact 2: Marijuana is not, in fact, a narcotic, by the dictionary definition, as it doesn't cause a physical dependency, only psychological. But it's legally considered a narcotic, while Nicotine, which fits the definition of a narcotic exactly, is not.

There is some evidence that MJ causes cancer, but it's not solid evidence. Nothing on the level of what cigarettes will do to you, at any rate.
 
Fun Fact 2: Marijuana is not, in fact, a narcotic
Wrong.

"A substance that affects mood or behavior." (Some definitions qualify 'consumed for non-medical purposes', but that's not strictly true as many medicinal prescriptions are still narcotics) There is no doubt marijuana is a narcotic.

while Nicotine, which fits the definition of a narcotic exactly, is not.
Depends on definition. Colloquially, 'narcotic' tends to be used to mean 'mind-altering drug', which nicotine is recognized as such by the CDC and AMA, can't speak for other parts of the world. For that matter, caffeine qualifies. And marijuna always qualifies as well. It does alter the mind.

But by the oldschool medicinal definition of narcotic, which requires the drug to be something that dulls pain by interacting with the central nervous system... nicotine and caffeine are not by that definition narcotics. But alcohol and marijuana are.

Or the original definition which only defined drugs derived from opium (now known as opiates or opioids) as narcotics. Which is the only definition that disqualifies marijuana.


Either way, your fun facts aren't facts.


There is some evidence that MJ causes cancer, but it's not solid evidence. Nothing on the level of what cigarettes will do to you, at any rate.
Oh, the evidence is overwhelming, at least in the case where it's smoked. All forms of smoke inhalation increases risks of cancer- such that most nations now recommend heavy ventilation and avoiding certain plants when burning incense due to the documented harm on the lungs, including some documented cancer risks. Though incense is more connected to COPD and asthma risks.

Marijuana and tobacco (and wood) smoke are particularly dangerous because one of the products is formaldehyde- which in concentrated doses has numerous health risks, including leukemia.

In addition, hemp and tobacco (and just about any other plant with a marked chemical effect on the human body such as but nowhere near limited to opium and poison ivy), tend to deliver chemicals via latex or wax. Which becomes what is colloquially known as 'tar' when burned.

The tar is probably more dangerous than the formaldehyde.


Now, cigarettes also add a bunch of other crap that make them a lot more dangerous than pure tobacco (it's almost like these companies are trying to kill their customers). So MJ is certainly better than those, but as compared to self-rolled cigars and cigarettes using untampered tobacco leaves? About equivalent.


The jury is still out on the health risks of eating marijuana (or, for that matter, tobacco that hasn't been loaded with a bunch of other toxic shit)... but smoking? There is no such thing as 'safe' smoke, I don't care what you're smoking.
 
Last edited:
Wrong.

"A substance that affects mood or behavior." (Some definitions qualify 'consumed for non-medical purposes', but that's not strictly true as many medicinal prescriptions are still narcotics) There is no doubt marijuana is a narcotic.

I mean by that metric, cheese would be a narcotic.

That seems like a metric which is so broad that it's not useful.

"This is my medicinal support pizza."
 
Look, when discussing chemicals and how they affect the body, the definition always includes a silent 'directly* and/or abnormally**' before the 'affect'. Otherwise, you are correct, and could have used oxygen as the word in question, instead of cheese.

And you're too smart to not already know this. So I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with stretching pedantry beyond any rational or sane stance.

No, seriously. Why are you even making this argument? We both know it's stupid.

*Food indirectly alters the brain. Unless it has a chemical in it that does, which would be classed as a drug. As seen in coffee or chocolate.
**In that it might have a direct influence on the brain, but not an abnormal one. Like oxygen- no disputing its influence, but it's normal and even critical, not a drug.
 
Last edited:
Look, when discussing chemicals and how they affect the body, the definition always includes a silent 'directly* and/or abnormally**' before the 'affect'. Otherwise, you are correct, and could have used oxygen as the word in question, instead of cheese.

But that's not what anyone saying those words actually mean, and you're too smart to not already know this. So I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with stretching pedantry beyond any rational or sane stance.

No, seriously. Why are you even making this argument? We both know it's stupid.

*Food indirectly alters the brain. Unless it has a chemical in it that does, which would be classed as a drug. As seen in coffee or chocolate.
**In that it might have a direct influence on the brain, but not an abnormal one. Like oxygen- no disputing its importance, but it's important in a normal way.

Because I think you're using an over-simplification which leads to an incorrect conclusion.

E.g. the WHO decided to remove these substances from the narcotics category -- which is plainly being used as a status designation rather than a rigorously scientific one.

https://www.who.int/news/item/04-12...es-cannabis-to-recognize-its-therapeutic-uses

That was four years ago.

I don't think you're presenting an accurate nor helpful version of the definition of "narcotics".
 
Did you not read the rest of the post where I went into actual detail?

This part?
And marijuna always qualifies as well.

Or this part?
Or the original definition which only defined drugs derived from opium (now known as opiates or opioids) as narcotics. Which is the only definition that disqualifies marijuana.

The 2020 WHO definition seems to invalidate both, especially that last sentence about "the only definition which disqualifies marijuana".

Honestly I don't want to do a point-by-point because that tends to infuriate people and removes your ability to save face.

But you're trying to imply that I should feel bad about missing something in your post.

Can you tell me what I'm supposed to feel bad about missing?
 
Also keep in mind I got this from a kid in highschool, I didn't have his references, and it was over 20 years ago.
 
I mean by that metric, cheese would be a narcotic.

That seems like a metric which is so broad that it's not useful.

"This is my medicinal support pizza."

Really? I wasn't aware of any chemical in cheese that directly interferes in brain function.


Look, when discussing chemicals and how they affect the body, the definition always includes a silent 'directly* and/or abnormally**' before the 'affect'. Otherwise, you are correct, and could have used oxygen as the word in question, instead of cheese.

And you're too smart to not already know this. So I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with stretching pedantry beyond any rational or sane stance.

No, seriously. Why are you even making this argument? We both know it's stupid.

*Food indirectly alters the brain. Unless it has a chemical in it that does, which would be classed as a drug. As seen in coffee or chocolate.
**In that it might have a direct influence on the brain, but not an abnormal one. Like oxygen- no disputing its influence, but it's normal and even critical, not a drug.

What about chocolate?
 
The 2020 WHO definition seems to invalidate both, especially that last sentence about "the only definition which disqualifies marijuana".
See, now, you could have started with that and made this a respectable conversation. But you chose not to.

that tends to infuriate people and removes your ability to save face.
I don't care about face. Yours or mine. I care about accuracy of statements. And when taken as a whole, I consider my statement accurate. Other than apparently the WHO (which I have absolutely no respect for as an organization for reasons that go deep in Rule 8 territory to discuss here) changing definitions like it's wont to do when they don't serve its current bullshit.

Can you tell me what I'm supposed to feel bad about missing?
I dunno, deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting my points in order to turn this into a game of semantics rather than actual discussion?

I thought you were better than that.

EDIT:

What about chocolate?
Depends on the chocolate, but yes, some chemicals common in chocolate have (exceedingly mild) mind-altering properties.

And so we're clear, it's entirely possible- common, even- for something to be (or, more accurately, contain) both a drug and a food. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Up to and including putting rat poison in someone's spaghetti.
 
Last edited:
I don't care about face. Yours or mine.

Okay then.

I care about accuracy of statements.

Bull fucking shit. You chose to lead with this:

Wrong.

"A substance that affects mood or behavior." (Some definitions qualify 'consumed for non-medical purposes', but that's not strictly true as many medicinal prescriptions are still narcotics) There is no doubt marijuana is a narcotic.

That's not accurate in its conclusion, nor in its content.

You're trying to sound authoritative, full stop, not trying to present accurate statements. And your statements are inaccurate.

I dunno, deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting my points in order to turn this into a game of semantics rather than actual discussion?

I thought you were better than that.

I'm providing a citation which shows that both the content and spirit of your statements were inaccurate.

I am better than that, and I've demonstrated it with a significantly higher level of discourse in this disagreement.

Notice how I'm not making any personal attacks here -- this is about your statements, nor your character.


What about chocolate?

I fucking hope so. Being classified as a narcotic would make chocolate 1% more fun to consume, and that's not a lot, but it's pure benefit.
 
I know Ghirardelli's is my go to antidepressant. Specifically the 72% cacao dark chocolate.
I mean, I have an oft-repeated rule against discussing specific medical diagnosis and treatment for ethical reasons, but if it's working for you?

That's not accurate in its conclusion, nor in its content.
It's part of an overall topic. Taken together, I think my point is clear. A quick and dirty, followed by the nuance and elaboration.

I'm providing a citation which shows that both the content and spirit of your statements were inaccurate.
Fair, I guess it wouldn't hurt to provide my own citation.

CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/opioids/basics/terms.html#:~:text=Narcotic drugs – Originally referred to any substance,drugs but technically, it refers only to opioids.

Copy/pasting from:

  • Narcotic drugs – Originally referred to any substance that dulled the senses and relieved pain. Some people use the term to refer to all illegal drugs but technically, it refers only to opioids. Opioid is now the preferred term to avoid confusion.

Covers all the definitions I also covered. Although apparently I was wrong about narcotic originally being opium-only. Other than that, this one considers me correct in definition and spirit. And wrong about use-order.

I am better than that, and I've demonstrated it with a significantly higher level of discourse in this disagreement.
Now you are, I'll grant you. But you started by trying to claim 'cheese' is a narcotic according to my definition. Which is untrue and I find it very hard to believe you didn't realize that from the beginning.

I fucking hope so. Being classified as a narcotic would make chocolate 1% more fun to consume, and that's not a lot, but it's pure benefit.
Sadly? Not a narcotic. Doesn't 'dull senses', not illegal so doesn't fit under that definition, and certainly no opioid.

But it does have a few substances that are considered drugs.
 
Last edited:
I mean, I have an oft-repeated rule against discussing specific medical diagnosis and treatment for ethical reasons, but if it's working for you?
I also have actual medication, but Ghirardelli's can certainly turn a bad day around because medicated isn't nearly the same as cured.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top