It's a small budget indie movie, and if you don't like people talking and prefer action, then maybe this isn't for you. Buut, for me, it was a great movie. It only uses one set, a room or two, for the entire movie. And it's still great.
Huh, I need ti actually rewatch I've been suggesting it so much lol
Edit "Timecrimes" was a good one imo as well iirc https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0480669/
It's crazy, really, reading about it.
-98?
How?
Mobile data connections were dogshit even here in Finland up until late 00's.
You know what's another really edgelord (not "edge lord") thing?
To not answer questions put to you after you pretend to be a master debater.
Perhaps it's because you literally can't answer any of those questions, because they show what a bad faith actor you are.
No answers about the books, after having asked for them. Have you read the list of books you linked? Ofc you haven't. You yourself admit you asked for books I had read, then somehow think a list of books from an Amazon search is related?
The wars for drugs weren't wars on drugs, but for them, silly.
All in all, you need to up your game. (Thinking you "win" a debate by loudly yelling "fallacy! Hahahah, so good)
A "war ON drugs" is a bit different from "a war FOR drugs". Perhaps you don't speak English?
The opioid wars weren't wars ON drugs.
Genuinely I wonder how people like you aren't ashamed to post. Genuinely baffles me.
You don't even read the comments you reply to. Vice laws have been tried several times in history.
You just don't know your fucking history, yet you're childish enough to argue me without even having a fucking point. It's pathetic.
It's generally accepted the war on drugs "really" began in the 70's, in the form it is today.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs
The term "war on drugs" was popularized by the media after a press conference, given on June 17, 1971, during which President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse "public enemy number one". He stated, "In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive. ... This will be a worldwide offensive.
This is evident from a whole lot of historic facts — all of which you're unaware of, obviously.
Why do you believe that anti-drug propaganda only began in the 20th century
Show me a single piece of drug propaganda earlier than the 20th century.
Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?
I do, you don't.
Your doctors don't know shit they just managed thorough med school with the help of the internet.
Not a future scenario btw, already the case.
a day or so about drug liberalisation.
But you're pretending we're not arguing over drug "liberalisation", so which is it? Am I arguing with you over that, or something else?
The only point of disagreement is
So you get to ignore all the stupid mistakes you made, and say what the conversation is about? Seems like you haven't had any conversations in real life...
I think you need to work on your persuasive writing and debating skills
Oh God, more of this. It's so clear what you value and what you pretend to be. Like when you thought that you'd win an argument by yelling out "fallacy", as if that meant that another person has to be wrong. Showing so clearly that you think that is an incredibly clear sign of how immature you are, philosophically.
You're pretending you don't know what an implication is (while still arguing based on what you think I implied), you're pretending like drug wars didn't start in the 20th century, and you're pretending you didn't say all the stupid shit you did. So, what do you think of the book? (Which you haven't read, like you've not read any others on the subject either.)
Quite frankly, I thank you for the entertainment.
You never named 10 books, while I provided a source for over 200.
And what exactly does this prove? That you know what Google is? Are you pretending you weren't asking for 10 books I had read on the subject? But, you just admitted you asked for it because you wanted to know what I'd read, so you obviously didn't want a googled list of books, which you then provided yourself? Continuing with your asinine prescriptive bullshit, but not applying it to yourself? Seeing as how I never said "unrestricted access to any drug."
Oh look! More projection!
Oh look, a kid pretending he understands psychology!
and yet I have never made a claim otherwise.
Pretending like you don't understand what an implication is. Very mature, indeed.
You should probably stop serial editing everyone of your comments.
Oh no, I made a typo! Nothing screams "chronically online edgelord" (that's how you spell "edgelord") just like thinking that editing a comment is somehow bad.
You try all the most edgelord things, like screaming "fallacy" to win a debate. Remember that? Remember when you tried winning an argument by calling it fallacious, like the edgelord you are, who has never picked up a book on philosophy, yet wants to pretend online he understands rhetoric.
All in all you need to up your game.
I haven't laughed that hard in months
See, but you are wrong, and now you're trying to pretend you're not, because you're a ~20 something male who can't accept when they make a mistake, and they always have to learn through being humiliated, than being ashamed for a few weeks, and then not doing that same mistake publicly again.
Remember the time you actually linked "that's a fallacy" , thinking naming a fallacy means you "win" a debate, when you presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong, when obviously, that's not the case.
Hey how about that time when you thought that saying "fallacy" wins you an argument?
Remember, you larping someone who understand how debating works? Remember that? Oh you don't, because it'd show just how much of a master debater you are?: )
No, he's not agreeing with me.
You don't understand the propaganda.
Do you think that if everyone who agreed on cannabis being mostly harmless, we'd still have cannabis prohibition? Ofc not.
And cannabis isn't even causing the most harm. We can actually get rid of drug cartels and make hundreds of billions of dollars in tax money by legalising drugs, but the efforts to do so are slowed by fucknuts like you and him who don't realise that you can slow something down even when you pretend to agree with it.
What do you believe is the difference between “Prohibition of all drugs to be lifted” and “unrestricted access to any drug”?
You should check a dictionary. A prohibition is when something is illegal to sell. Do you think if something isn't illegal, it's unrestricted? Why would you think that?
You’d rather chew your own leg off than answer my question from the previous comment. That’s how strong the propaganda is, and I don’t know why it affects you so much.
I will pose my questions one more time.
And I stand by that.
I've answered your questions, but you're not asking them for any reason. You're pretending to ask them for a reason. Honestly, what are you, like, 20? This is insanely childish.
#Show me drug propaganda from the 19th century please. I'll wait right here. You will desperately google some, but the only thing you'll find from the 19th century is drug adverts, not propaganda. There are a few cases in history of so called vice laws, but prohibition =/= drug propaganda. Perhaps you didn't realise that, huh?
Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?
I do yes. You do not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen
Why did you ask for me to mention ten books when you can't address a single one that I name? Perhaps because you're a sort of silly little boy who's pretending to know a lot about something they don't, thinking that because they've smoked weed, they're not "against the prohibition", while actively fighting it.
Anyone supporting the prohibition of drugs is acting against the well-being of society in general. That's an indisputable fact I can and have backed with peer-reviewed studies.
edit oh that's a fun comment about "projection" from some teen who thinks he "wins" debates by saying "that's a fallacy" as if you've ever opened a philosophy book :DD let alone understood the first thing about psychology. you've tried your teenage gotchas several times and i've shown you how much of a tit you were being and wow, you instantly stop with the argument I made you feel stupid about.
seconded.
I have a mousewheel which I can unlock for it to just spin freely. And that still took me way longer than expected.
I just wish I were the sort of person to advocate for violence, because I think it might be useful in dealing with this issue, but I'm not, so I won't.
women whose life would be threatened by carrying to term, due to medical complications.
- women who were pregnant through rape and/or incest.
Holy fuck a Romanian dictatorship had it better than some states in the US
Let's assume OOP is an openly gay dude. That's why he has a profile pic on grindr (implied). The dude who's hounding him doesn't.
Suppose OP is roommates with a woman.
Suppose that woman is in a relationship with a guy who's bi/curious/closeted and is hounding OOP because he's seen him while visiting her.
That would make sense.
But I think it's just a punchline
I was like "how is she dead"
But then I remembered I watched the episode really high and forgot the ending
Just something MAGA-people seem to have a hard time with sometimes. Probably not as much when Americans are speaking to themselves, but as a non-American, sometimes it's challenging to get "those people" to admit that there is indeed anything wrong with the US. As in they won't accept a single criticism, and will loudly proclaim "America is the greatest country in the world", while wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat, which for me pretty explicitly means America isn't great, if it has to be made to be such again.
