I was simply telling what I know about toxic substances and you began making a drama out of it and switching it to my person, and now dare to claim ‘I was doing that from the very start’?
Sounds as another symptom of a brain damaged by chemical substances.
I simply was telling what I know, if you want to convince me in something you need to bring evidences, not personal attacks.
Was it me serving in a terrorist organization for a criminal warmongering tribal regime?
Either of them was wrong?
May I introduce you Diana Kim. Have you two met?
As much as I love my Di-Di, she’s not known for admitting fault… Or a lack of knowledge… Or just plain being wrong…
Pfft like I was wrong anywhere and didn’t apologize for that.
Go back to the hiding hole you crawled out from, petty coward lying murderous cultist.
In fairness, I didn’t actually say you were wrong. I don’t actually know enough about the subject to comment on that.
I just found it funny that someone thought that the Great Strike Commander Di-Di Kim, Hero of Galnet Satirists, would back down. And, let’s be honest, lovely, I think you might even take an unwillingness to back down regardless of what is presented to you as a compliment.
What evidences? A sample? Sorry, sugar, my supply is not that vast to share with people who don’t need it. And in every damn post I told you that I have no intention of convincing you in anything. If you want confirmation of my words - search the galnet - plenty of scientific materials out there. But if you’re already biased, it is unlikely that you’ll easily believe those which are not biased in a similar way.
Will I be wrong if I say that you’re serving a faschist regime?
Just a reference to a published work usually is sufficient.
See? Another pathetic personal attack, once again instead of showing your point you are attacking your opponent.
Well, get that back:
I believe verifiable facts, not a mewling of a rotten-minded drug junkie.
Abso-■■■■■■■-lutely.
Search engine. That way
What’s personal attack? Calling you biased? Are all SWA graduates that sensitive as to recognize someone telling them they’re biased as personal attack?
Say it to youself then.
But you see, I do not only view the State as that. I’m always willing to inspect things from a different angle. That’s what makes perspective.
You only see things from one angle. That’s what makes a point of view. You’d see a cyllinder as either a circle or a rectangle. Like a 5 degree dscan. Good for you, in a sense. Makes life a whole lot easier - ignorance is bliss as they say.
First, you didn’t say where exactly I was wrong.
Second, you directed into me absolutely wrong sentence, which I pointed at you that was wrong.
Any ad hominem is a personal attack. For example, when your argument becomes like this:
Where it’s true or not, it is a personal attack.
As for how I view things: I tend to build my points of view that reflect most of the actual facts I am aware of. If I learn new facts, I adjust my point of view so it would include new facts. If some of the facts conflict, I do a verification of these facts.
And I tend to not consider as a fact a baseless mewling of a half-witted addicts or otherwise dumb persons who instead of telling me something useful that I could incorporate into my point of view, make up some stupid stuff about me and present it as an argument.
I mean, it should be pretty much ovious if someone builds an argument with saying some nonsence about my person that I am well aware that is a nonsence, then obviously their own ideas about other things have no merit as well.
I did. You were calling me a traitor to the State 
To which I pointed out that I learnt main course at PTS.
I’m also not addicted to anything (maybe to toxic conversations a little bit), and I barely ever use pcychoactive substances for mere amusement (Well, alcohol is hardly any good for anything else, but I doubt you’d seriously recognize it as a drug of this kind). So neither ‘junkie’ nor ‘addict’ is right either. But since you’re that biased you’ll hardly believe that, not that I’d give any fucks.
Should I say how you were wrong about my people and our ways? I’d rather not - you don’t like us - come try to shoot us if you want.
Aye) If there was an option to take your head from on point in time and present it to your head from other, I’d do that. So one head would ask if she was wrong, and the other would reply “Absolutely wrong!”
If I’d call you beautiful would that be a personal attack? Or you’d qualify that as harassment?
A personal attack would be if I’d call you a touchy wee fanny serving a faschist regime blindfolded. Feel the differrence yet? That’s the way you communicate for quite a while already, when I resorted to it for the first time through our lovely discourse just for demonstration.
Now, if I’d make a demand of you to present me evidence of how planetary gravity works or what happens in your guts to the food you injest would you do that for me? Or you’d rather point me in the direction of a search engine?
I have to admit this abbriviation is unfamiliar to me and looked like physical-training with something.
However, I do see clear now that you are apparently lacking to be Caldari, you were not lucky to be born as one of our greatest bloodlines and thus cannot be a traitor to the State. For this I do bring my sincere apologies. It was highly unprofessional for me to assume such a jaijii could be one of us!
Can you make a more clear statement, have you ever used a psychoactive chemical substance for entertainment purpose or not?
Wrong or right isn’t dictated by likes or dislikes, but by mere underlying facts.
Was there.
Done that.
Will do again.
You made one claim, I said it was wrong. I was pouring on you quite a lot of claims and you haven’t said which one of them was wrong. You have to be specific. I am not a telepath.
If you’d make an argument like “You’re wrong because you’re beautiful”, yep. Ad hominem. “You don’t understand our problems because you’re beautiful”. “You make such claims only because you’re beautiful”. Any sort of discussion of author to prove or refute point not explicitly related to the personality of the author is taboo.
Considering such demand looks irrational and unrelated to the discussion, yes, that’s what I’d do.
Just to be clear? The Caldari State is a meritocratic corporate state with some quasi-feudal elements (the Great Families) that mostly arise out of people’s tendency to expect greatness from children of the great (also their grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great grandchildren, great-great-great grandchildren, and so on).
Even if it’s definitely not a democracy (pretty much nobody outside the Federation really is, you know?) it’s pretty far short of the level of unilateral control we usually expect from a “fascist” state. Not only does it tolerate its dissidents (however reluctantly) but it also decentralizes power, spreading it among multiple political entities with no single ruler.
To be clear, I’m a dissident myself on the subject of State marriage and reproductive policies (and an exile, sort of, but that’s voluntary).
(Also me reverting to my Achur cultural roots after converting to attend SWA is technically a big no-no, but since I’m a capsuleer nobody can stop me so THBBBBBBBT.)
We did kind of toy with trying a proper dictatorship a while back. Aside from some important reforms at the start, it didn’t go so well. The modern State has some fascistic tendencies but at least since the Dictator’s fall it’s been hard to argue that it’s properly fascist.
Aye, lacking as much as 3/4. Unless my gramps was not the first Deteis in line to bang a Thukker.
Entertaiment? Wouldn’t say so. Recreation? Sometimes - the milder ones obviously. I hope, entertainment and recreation are not entirely the same to you? For the record, I do consider alcohol a psychoactive chemical substance but I presume you don’t really view it as such thus I adjust my answers accorcingly.
And I must ask you what you consider ‘chemical’? Because pretty much everything in the world can be called that. If you mean ‘synthesized in a lab via chemical reaction’ - I know enough of them not to touch that shite for mere amusement. Combat boosters can be entertaining ya know, but I wouldn’t ever use them just for that.
Which are facts only from your perspective.
Did I say you’re wrong because you’re biased (not an insult, or a negative characteristic)? I said, you were unlikely to believe the sources that are not biased in a similar way. Does that look like an attempt to prove point? There a tendency in people with strong opinion on some subject to search confirmation rather than contradiction. If that’s called a personal attack in your book then I personally attack you for having a shitty code of discussion.
Oh. How do you know your dinner doesn’t turn into pcychoactive bile inside you? Or that gravity forces are not pcychoactive?
Or maybe you have any solid materials on those ‘chemical burns to brain tissue’?
Yes, Aria, I know. And I don’t really see the State as nothing more than a fascist regime. Republic is not really built around terrorism either.
I was assuming that one-sided view only to show Diana what her own insinuations look like.
EWWWWWW
Can you just give a simple answer?..
Well, under chemical I mean more like… a substance with a certain degree of purity, or a substance in a certain inert carrier (for example, in water solution, in alcohol solution, maybe in DMSO to get the substance through skin tissues, maybe with some inert solid carrier to create a digestable pill, and so on, and in a solution you know how much percentage of that substance in that solution. In other words, when you know what exactly this substance is on a chemical level and not just some mixture of Winds-know-what in Maker-knows-what-proportions. For example, majority of medicines and drugs can be considered like chemical substances or mixtures of chemical substances, because doctors should know, first, what exactly do the feed to their patients, and in which exact qualities so the said patients at the same time would get enough substance for the effect, and not enough to get overdose.
Are you being obtuse on purpose?
Facts remain facts disregarding of perspective. They have a quality that they can be verified and confirmed. Subjective interpretations of facts are undesirable.
You brought a discussion of my person into discussion of drug effects that I had with you.
I prefer my dinner to be a modern synthetic food and I do trust scientists who develop it and manufacturers who produce it. Gravity forces might be psychoactive, but I doubt you will survive their effects. As for “chemical burn” it’s just words that describe a destructive effect of a chemical on a tissue. The destructive effect of a chemical can be found in respectful paper related to biological effect of the said substance.
I didn’t claim the whole Republic is terrorists, I meant U’K are terrorists, and I believe some U’K members were openly admitting that, am I wrong in this?
As for the Republic itself, it is just full of criminality, it funds terrorists, and it is being run by a criminal.
This grrrrr fest is still going?
K!
(Sometimes-- often-- people really mean it.)
(But, also, um, arguments with Ms. Kim? She’s kind of capable of continuing until she exhausts you. And everyone.)
Well. Reality’s not that simple. Opinions vary, terminology - varies. Attempting to give simple answers tends to lead to people calling you out for lying. Make a decision whether you want a simple or clear, specific answer.
No, I do not use synthesized mind-altering substances for entertainment. Some I did use for exploartion - how the description matches the experience. And from that I figured that Winds and Makers are better at synthesizing these substances than humans. The effects are harder to predict, yet the side effects are less to deal with. And the experience is usually a lot… cleaner. User’s personal effects also matter - same dosaga of same thing from the same place might be not cause direct harm to one person yet cause an organ failure to another. That is true for natural and synthetic alike.
They should, but they not always do. And not every pharmacist is entirely honest about their product.
On this particular topic - yes. Are you a politician, Strike Commander? Me neither. I have no intention to justify my people or our government in your eyes by words. I have gunnery for that.
Yes, I did earlier. Because I grew weary of arguing with a someone, who is undereducated on the subject but presses their faulted point on. You can’t imagine how often do I get these kinds of lectures from the people that turn out to be incompetent.
But you starded recognizing anything as a personal attack so we have this line of conversation as well.
Sunshine, this is not how it works. You don’t sprinkle it over your brain tissue and get chemical burns. You might get membranes burnt if you take some things nasally - usually beause of a poor choice of solvent by the manufacturer. But what gets to brain cells gets there through your blood and if it’s capable of inducing chemical burns, you die earlier.
Aye, I already see that
(I’m just acquiring a shitposting record so they’d include my character in SSS 
)