Some more innovative jewelry

It's obvious that you don't have any actual experience here Muro, although feel free to suggest otherwise.

'Hard drugs' are NOT instantly addictive anymore than alcohol is, you can quite easily try such a thing once, not like it and not want for it again. Heck, that's how most of the experimenters survive already.

I never said those friends of mine weren't addicted, I said they weren't "animated corpses" running around beating up children for their lunch money as you (and the media) seem to suggest. They aren't on the upper end of society, don't have much cash and yet can support their habit if they feel the need without any crime whatsoever. I get the feeling that's the vast majority of users as well.

And who are you to judge people's reasons? Like I said, it's the same as drinking alcohol - people start using as an escape, not a solution. The way your talking it'd be better if they solved their problems via mass suicide. Depression isn't always about taking your own life, y'know.

Anyway, you're being pretty damned stubborn about this so I will say no more.

 

The majority of drug income isn't brought in from little kids. Contrary to what you seem to think, not everybody who uses drugs is an idiot. There are university professors out there who have used/are using hard drugs like acid and LSD. A huge percentage of the population smokes marijuana. Keeping this in mind, it is safe to assume that the amount of people buying drugs laced with shit that makes it even more dangerous in a system where the drugs are sold at your local Pharmasave is relatively low.

Indeed, people don't just use drugs because their 'life has turned to shit'. Few people pick up their first dosage of something because they're miserable. Most drug use is done recreationally, which is why kids (referring to teenagers, not infants who pay a nickel to some crazy guy on the corner) are such active users of the stuff. The actual reasoning behind taking it is no different than drinking alcohol. I'll assume from your strong stance against drug use, that you are quite pleased Absinthe is illegal in North America, correct?

 

@Charonte

What particular "experience" do you have in mind? Because indeed, I have no experience of trying or seeing junkies on live, but I don't think it can be said that I possess no knowledge, since on one hand I'm self-taught on the topic, interested in it and reading whatever I can about it, and on the other hand, the path of education I have chosen also includes providing me with knowledge about narcotics.

Why are you lying that it's no more instantly addictive than alcohol? The mechanism varies for different drugs, but compared to alcohol any hard drug has a much more powerful psychoactive effect and the body much more quickly gets used to it, demanding more when the current dose uses up. Hard drugs addict you physically from the very beginning, while alcohol physical addiction needs a lot of time and regularly drunken alcohol to become a factor. It's hard to talk about all hard drugs in general without mistakes, so I'll use the example of heroine.

The primary effect of ethanol is just fogging your perception, the addiction is at first only psychological, with the drinking person thinking it would be nice to feel that again. There is no such thing as an instant alcohol addiction though, it often needs a lot of regular drinking just for the flavor aspects before any symptoms of addiction appear, because no one starts with drinking himself unconcious, whereas drugs show you their full potential (both psychoactive and addicting) from the very beginning.

Now lets compare this with heroine. It acts exactly like endorphins, the "hormones of happiness", affecting the very nervous system. It blocks the feeling of pain, causes euphoria and muscle flaccidity. And after the dose stops fully working, not only is there a vast psychological urge to feel that state once again, first withdrawal symptoms appear, because the body already does feel the lack of heroine and wants more. It doesn't matter if an individual is strong enough to bear this temptation and not take another dose, from the medical point of view withdrawal symptoms mean that your body is already addicted.
The strenght of the fist withdrawal symptoms depend on various aspects including the organism's immunity to the drug, but it is not uncommon that the very first dose causes an addiction, and even if not, with every dose the case gets worse and worse and you need more and more to satisfy the demand of your body. It can be a few of just-one-more-time's and you may not notice when you lose control over the situation, assuming you had any after taking the first dose. The intense of these effects is in no way comparable with alcohol.

Either you misunderstood me or I didn't make myself clear enough, but I'm not saying that they are animated corpses doing evil and such. I do however say that they are risking it, following the path which can lead in that direction, and I think it wise unwise of them to choose this path to begin with.

I have little empathy and understandment for human stipidity. If one choses a doubtful escape instead of a solution, he is doing a stupid thing, and all I'm doing is poiting out how stupid it is. I'm saying that their rough life situation does not justify their choice of escaping to alcohol or drugs. Even if they care nothing for their lives, by chosing alcohol/drugs they also poison and threaten the lives of others. They were aware that they are doing the wrong thing and nothing, absolutely nothing good will become of this, but they did it anyway. In my eyes such behavior is pathetic.

All I'm doing is thinking I am right because of what I know and defending my rights with logic and reason. But I'm not blinded, it's not being stubborn for the very sake of it and not once have I changed my stance when I heard an argument which showed a flaw in my argumentetion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Grakelin

Majority is one thing, increasing the chance of drugs owned by unaware kids is another. I may one day have a child. I won't be interested where does 99,99% of the drugs go, if legalising them will even by a slightiest amount increase the propability that drugs will land in the kid's hands. If it grows up, gains knowledge about drugs and decides to stain his life with them anyway, be it that way, but I really don't want it (or frankly any other kid) to have a chance of getting involved in drugs before they are aware enough about the consequnces and responsible enough to decide for their own lives.

Do you think I would not call an university professor an idiot? In this case, idiocy is defined by actions, not by academic degree. An university professor doing drugs is even more of an idiot that a casual junky because he has propably more knowledge on the topic of drugs and the consequences of doing them, and does them anyhow.
In other words, I'm not saying that someone is doing drugs because he is an idiot. I'm saying that someone is an idiot because he is doing drugs.

I don't put hard drugs and marijuana on the same shelf.

OK, I may be lost, but what actually are you willing to prove by saying that? Doesn't it mean that indeed the more legal drugs the worse, because the reason why people take them are the same as behind drinking alcohol, but the consequences are much worse?

It has never been scientifically proven that absinthe is by any means more dangerous or psychoactive that other alcohols. Therefore, I don't have any reasons to treat absinthe more harshly than other alcohols, so I guess the answer to your question would actually be "incorrect".

 

Why don't you put marijuana on the same shelf as other drugs? Consider that marijuana is still a dangerous and addictive substance that is looked upon positively by North American culture. Much like cigarettes and alcohol.

There are plenty of dangerous things I can give a child that resembles candy and that the police won't arrest me for having. Even Flintstones vitamins will kill somebody if they take too many at once. And prescription drugs are easy to get at. My argument isn't about legalizing drugs, though, it is about the people who use them.

I still don't understand why you feel so strongly that anybody taking a hard drug is a complete fool for doing so. Especially since some very influential intellectuals decided to take the risk of using psychedelic drugs. Are the people who formed the world as we know it today idiots?

 

However, with guns being legal, they have easier access, and thus can get even greater firepower.

Also, "but they can break in anyways" methodology fails because:

- If your house is being broken in, the burglar does NOT need firearms - a knife will do the trick quite nicely (Happens in Turkey). If you keep a firearm at your home, you only increase the chance you get killed (Since the burglar too could get it via legal ways), as the firearm will provoke the burglar to use his own. 1st priority = Survival in all cases.

- Banks and Jewelers have special laws - Jewelers can keep firearms under the counter, and banks... well... If you've ever seen a Bank Money Transport, you'd understand, with the armed guards and all. Also most banks already have silent alarm systems, meaning the law can arrive while the burglars are still busy.

- Illegal guns would actually turn school shootouts into less harmful school stabbings, if not eliminate it. With higher chance of survival too.

Even as a militarist, I can say that legalizing guns will only increase the rate of death (with the rate of crime too), which is all that matters in the end. So it's not the solution.

 

This is bullshit of the worst kind, and it's a train of thought that's promoted by video games. In the real world, it doesn't take 10 hits from a .45 caliber pistol to take a person down; it takes one. Point being, in the hands of a person who knows how to use it, a gun is a gun is a gun. In most cases, two guys with pistols have greater firepower than one guy with a machine gun.

Me having a loaded gun in my home makes it less likely that someone will try to break in in the first place, and more likely that if they do, their brains will decorating my wall when they leave.

You sound to me like a person who has never used a gun. You also sound like an idiot.

 

I don't put it on the same shelf as hard drugs, because form what I know, marijuhana is far less addictive and devastating for the mind. I recall even some researches showing it's less addictive than ethanol, but I'm not sure how reliable were they. Anyway, I'd say I put marijuaha on the same shelf as alcohol, since because of not that high addictiveness, there won't be too much people commiting crimes only to get money for pot, but people after pot may be as dangerous as those ones after alcohol in situation in which their fogged perception can be lethal to other people, such like the example I abuse, that is driving the car.

Yup, but the less the better, no?

To answer your last question - quite possibly (that would actually explain a whole lot about whay the world is so fucked up). If you still don't understand why I think that way, I'm not sure if I can say it any clearer. My opinion is that the doubtful benefits from using drugs are incomparable with the downsides and a reasonable person would see it, therefore not decide to do drugs.

To comment the people you mentioned, first of all I'm not sure how the danger behind drugs was well known at the time each of them started using drugs. Also, I'm not saying that an intelligent person who makes humanity progress can't become and idiot eventually. The two states are not mutually exclusive, especially since they can be disconnected in time. Isaac Newton gave a huge contribution to modern physics, which would not be on the same level nowadays if not for him. But he did that when he was quite young, why in his older years he abandoned science and turned to alchemy. I can say that he did a stupid thing, still remembering how much modern science owes him.

 

YES! And that's exactly why militaries and elite police forces only issue pistols - 1 shot at a time is certainly enough. If you know to use a gun, there is no difference between an AK-47 or some other automatic weapon and a pistol.

Case at hand - You are a civilian. You have a gun. And the burglar has a gun. Result - When you try to get to your gun, the burglar already has his gun out. You make him panic, he shoots you. He has preparation advantage, you've just awaken. You're dead.

By legalizing gun, you make everyone have access to it, including people who might not have used it otherwise. Unless your country's police force is total crap (I expect it for US), you shouldn't have advanced automatic firearms around for criminals to use. Which would make bank robberies I could bother to compare your country with a European one that knows how to make civilized laws, but then, you'll whine about them having a smarter in general populace compared to your country. So, I'll compare with with my own country, the Turkish Republic, instead - A place of rising Islamism, traditional leftist/rightist combat and an ancestral warrior culture:

Total Rate of Crimes, 2000: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_t ... per-capita

# 8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
# 54 Turkey: 4.11252 per 1,000 people

And we are VIOLENT.

Also in Intentional Homicides, we've fared mostly lower than the U.S., with a slight higher rate followed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... urder_rate

Not to mention, our murder rates also factor in our Civil War with the Kurds - Loyalist Kurds vs. Seperatist Traitors also count as "murders". And we have weird offshoots like Ulku Ocaklari, a paramilitary organization for armed "intervention" against the Socialists in the 70's. And we have Islamists trying to kill people for drinking near the Topkapi Palace or some other "offensive to Islam" crap. And YOU HAVE THE DAMN MURDER RATE NEAR/ABOVE US.

You could've thought that burglars cannot perceive if you have a gun or not without entering your house, will already have any gun you can have via legal ways anyways, and will have the preparation advantage and the element of surprise with them, all before insulting me, if you weren't a probably-Republican&conservative dumbfuck. How nice of you to insult someone just for not sharing your thoughts. You'd make a perfect creationist.

 

Huh...that's funny...I recently watched a documentary about gun control in the U.S. showing that crime rates actually went up in Washington D.C. after they banned firearms from private owners, and that the crime rates between states with gun freedoms aren't any higher than states with strict gun control laws. Don't ask me for sources. It was a documentary on telly and I can't care enough to spend hours digging up facts made up by both sides of the argument. My own view is I'd rather have the right (I most likely wouldn't exercise that right) to own a gun in the event the police are incapable of doing their job (hardly surprising here). Or in the event I put into place my plan Operation Z and storm the parliament and take over the government.
And using crime rates involving guns is ludicrous really since it doesn't take into account the millions of gun owners who are responsible, which crazy enough, are the vast overwhelming majority of gun owners. If a crazy fuck shoots up a school or other place, it's not a gun problem, it's because the person was a fucking nutcase.
However, I see no practical use for automatics other than to wage war. Or maybe to mince that deer meat prior to skinning...

 

I know several local stores I can go to and purchase guns legally. They're registered, tagged, and mildly monitored. I also know several people who can get me any gun I'd like, which is conveniently missing it's id information, and won't show up on any gun listing anywhere. See my point? Criminals will always have weapons, regardless of the legality of it. That's part of what makes them criminals.

 

I said "in most cases," meaning "most domestic cases". We're not talking about a force-on-force conflict, we're talking about armed citizens and armed criminals. In these situations, it usually doesn't matter who has a bigger gun, it matters who shoots first. After all, most criminals aren't out there conducting tactical operations in squad- or platoon-sized elements. And machine guns are primarily used for suppressive fire or engaging multiple enemies, not for holding up a Seven-Eleven. There's a reason why you have to have a class III firearms license to buy/sell/own them.

And on the topic of home invasion situations, it's all about how serious you are about defending what's yours. Some people keep a loaded shotgun in the closet, some of us keep a pistol under the mattress. Personally, I believe I have every right to defend what's mine, violently if need be. You may feel like criminals should be free to enter your house and rob you blind, maybe rape your wife and kids while they're at it, without worrying about you pulling a gun on them. In my home, it would have to be over my dead body.

And I say you sound like an idiot, not because you disagree, but because your arguments are stupid. There are anti-gun people on this forum who I respect. You just aren't one of them.

 

Toward's Muro's comment about the world being fucked up: The people I posted up are largely sociologists and artists, both professions that have (arguably, if you think wommenz rights is good) actually made the world a better place. As for them living in a time where the effects of drugs were not well-known: most of the people on the list I provided were active in the 20th century. They knew what the risks were. Sigmund Freud continued using cocaine even after the dangers became clear, because he saw its intellectual uses. If you do proper research, you will find that a great deal of the advancements these people made are claimed to have been made by these intellectuals while they were tripping on LSD. Studies during the 60s and 70s also showed that subjects with learning disabilities had an easier time understanding concepts such as calculus and algebra while on LSD. Indeed, the main reason why the drug isn't on the forefront of inspirational stimulation is because of the low a person experiences after the high.

The debate over whether marijuana is worse than other drugs or not is a huge one. Some researchers claim that it is better to smoke a joint than a cigarette. Others claim that a joint is worth four cigarettes. However, smoking enough marijuana does elicit psychedelic effects, just as peyote or acid does. I'll call a stalemate on the marijuana issue, since the research almost always contradicts eachother and we'll get nowhere by trying to come to a conclusion on it. However, trying to claim that alcohol isn't dangerous is a fallacy.

When I typed "deaths caused by alcohol" into Google, I came across this site. 60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol? Holy toledo! Maybe this keys into the high homicide rate in the USA somehow (this is true, I've seen it sourced all over the place). Mesteut: In your country (since I think you live in Turkey, though I'm not sure) is alcohol viewed in the same manner as it is in the West? It's not a full connection, since Canadians love their beer as much as (if not more) than Americans, yet have a much lower homicide rate, but it may factor in somewhat.

Now, I know that somebody is going to try to claim that my source is biased because it's about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and they're probably trying to push their "don't drink while pregnant" agenda (those scum! Taking away our freedom!), so I'll find some more. The obvious one is this list of famous people who have died because of alcohol which is quite large. But lots of famous people die of overdoses, too, so let's move on. A quick note before moving on, though, the people after whom alcoholic drinks are typically named died of alcohol related causes. Captain Henry Morgan, the pirate on the rum bottle, actually worked for the British, and was granted control of Jamaica, as Governor General, after several successful military incursions in Central America. The rum was named after him because of his famous love for said beverage. One day he groggily crawled into his hammock and died of liver failure.

Here is an article.

Here is a second article.

Here is a third article to confirm.

Alcohol kills more people than any other drug. It's legal because it is a base part of our culture, and it is easily taxable. In fact, the US tried to ban it once, and the increase in crime as a result was too much to handle. It is just as addictive as illegal narcotics. Why isn't there any moral stipulation against this? Having a parent addicted to alcohol is still an addicted parent.

 

I think I'm sigging part of this. I am a pacifist, but I agree with you. What really irks me is when people get sued by criminals for injuries occurring during home invasions. Lesson learned? Kill'em.

 

The things are:

1- The criminal most probably can shoot better than you, him being fully awake and conscious, and with experience and preparedness at hand. Reaching your gun is most probably going to kill you.

2- I'm going to capitalize this, because you don't seem to understand: YOUR MURDER RATE CAN ONLY BE EQUALED BY A COUNTRY WITH RISING ISLAMISM IN ITS PRIME AND A WARLIKE CULTURE. PLACES LIKE ENGLAND, FRANCE, GERMANY - EUROPEAN PLACES THAT GOT MASSIVE IMMIGRATION (Germany is like a European Turkish colony sometimes), HAVE MUCH LOWER MURDER/CRIME/GUN VIOLENCE RATES THAN YOU. BY LEGALIZING GUN, YOU DON'T ONLY PROVIDE YOURSELF A DEFENSE MECHANISM, BUT YOU ALSO CREATE A LEGAL SUPPLY OF WEAPONS TO THE CRIMINALS. AND IF YOUR POLICE FORCE/COASTGUARD/BORDER GUARDS WERE HALF COMPETENT, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH ILLEGAL WEAPON SUPPLIES ALONG WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

3- Automatic/Semi-Automatic guns are perfectly purchasable. Even by this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OCJn9XEfhU

(The gun's a AR-15, still in service in the U.S. military)

Yes, perfect idea to carry a gun openly, especially where the President is going to pass. How nice that you have a law allowing it. Then people say how could 9/11 happen? It's a miracle Obama didn't get a bullet through the head, with the precautions (lack of) I've seen there.

Saying people will only use it for defense is plain stupid - Like saying Marijuana and LSD are actually mind clearers. Perhaps a few individuals can use it for "enlightment" (like a few of my friends too), but most use it for pleasure. Just because you want to have a gun for "protection" does NOT prevent the damage that will be caused by people who can freely own guns without consideration. Quoting from wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States)

"Where there is a marked disparity between the incidence of crime in the US and all other comparable developed countries is in the per capita rate of murder committed with firearms. The most recent data show that the proportion of people in America killed by firearms is more than three and a half times greater than in Portugal, the next country of comparable development. [49] (Scotland, though shown in the table, is not an independent country). The proportion of Americans killed by firearms per year is more than seven and a half times greater than the comparable proportion of residents in the 10 developed countries with the next highest rates of firearm homicides.[49]"

Yes, owning guns freely certainly works well for you. Now stop with the pseudo-heroic "I can die for my family" argument and face the consequences of almost-unrestricted gun ownership.

Well, guess what you dickless faggot, your respect isn't worth shit because you're a daughter/mother/wife marketing pimp. And a pathetic poor one too, considering I could give you $1.00 and fuck them all, but I won't because they are sick, as in carrying diseases, both psychologically and venereally, like you. You have this itch, an itch in the ass, and I'll scratch that itch with my dick, you secretary-in-a-brothel homo. Now don't provoke me further and fuck off with the insults, or I'll give you that $1.00, and get your mother, daughter, sister and wife fucked by a donkey. Now stop with the insults and get your loose-asshole fucked, you bitch.

Seriously, stop with the insults. I AM trying to be civilized, but you leave me no option. Even when I learned that T-A'ers aren't usually the friendly bunch after the backlash at the College Advice thread I made to see people's opinions.

Archmage Orintil: An initial peak is to be expected, considering they announced that "people wouldn't be having firearms legally anymore". Only with time, you can see the long term effect of lower crime rate and less socially justified violence. I don't expect instant-grafication crazy Americans to understand the wisdom behind this.

DarkFool: You're neglecting that people who wouldn't dare to commit crimes get all brave and strong after they get hold of a gun. Guns also rise the crime rate along with granting protection, and that assumes everyone is Mr. Vigilante Japes here. The solution is not to give everyone guns, but crackdown if necessary and take guns away from all except the law. Also, it's the country's law system that's fucked up if criminals can sue people for self-defense. There's something called "balanced response" though - You can't use a gun on someone who's only carrying a knife - or use a mitrailleuse on someone with a pistol. Overkill is/should be outlawed.

Grakelin: Alcohol, Tobacco AND opium, pot and other psychadelic stuff were all legal in the Ottoman Empire. Drinking raki, the Turkish national drink, also called the Lion's Milk, is a sign on manlihood there. There is a European saying called "smoking like a Turk". Opium and weed were one of the main cultural signs of the Ottoman era Anatolian culture. And the Turkish Republic was the lead (and the most quality) opium and cannabis producer in the 40's. Yet we had to outlaw it because of U.S. pressure. The illegality of drugs/weed/psycadelic stuff here is not because of something cultural or scientific, but political. In short - It's your fault.

Yuki: Read and learn how to swear.

General: I'm usually fine with homosexuals, as long as they don't try to "get me involved". The homophobic comments were made because they are also common Turkish swearwords. Sorry if any of you are offended, except Mr. Willingly-fucked-in-a-Jungle-by-athletic-black-men Japes.

 

Do I need to post a link to a video of 'The Internet is for Porn' to calm you people down?

 

I just value my intelligence highly, being one of the smartest people of my country (In the best school without bothering, special talent on creativity and understanding on physics, history, military science, math, sports, etc). I won't have my intelligence put into question by someone who doesn't even have the quarter of my current mental performance in his peak mental capability and thought process, let alone my potential.

There are a few more reasons why I won't have my mental prowess questioned by some random person, but I won't just go around saying things I can't prove on the Internet. Retaliation at its best is fine enough.

P.S. I wasn't trying hard with the insults. :roll:

 

Okay, apparently you boys need the link. Seriously, guys, it's the internet. Winning an arguement on the internet is like making it with one of the Spice Girls - nobody really cares any more.

Here's a whole goddamn playlist of the funny, calm down already guys.

(Not meaning to be mean, Mesteut, but back the fuck off. I was just being silly, no need to give me a bleedin' lecture. Also - don't make assumptions about people's intelligence. There are a lot of very intelligent people here in HoL, people with valid opinions that happen to be different to yours. For gods sake, if you're trying to take the high ground, descending into profanity and then going off at someone trying to defuse the situation before their screen explodes is not going to help your cause. Damn, man, all you've done is damage the credibility of everyone else trying to argue the point, and I hate it when people screw with my credibility! BAD Mesteut!)

 

You might be right on the note - I did go a little overboard. He did insult my intelligence though - and I won't be accepting any of it from anyone, unless are in damn Ivy League or something. Then still, I'd hold my ground. I said I won't be going further as long as he doesn't try to get in another "idiot" remark, so let us stop the discussion here.

On a side note, this is what I have to show on the Internet-Porn Relationship, coming from the best T.V. character ever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUifLbLVXFo

Take that, House M.D.

 

Admiring artists and judging their contribution into humanity is a subjective thing. It's more than common that someone has an artistic vision after some crack, but legalising those visions from my point of view is not worth the bad things that happen to society after the said legalisation.

That species is so close to humans that they deserve those equal right.

No one is irreplaceable. If there was no Sigmunt Freud, sooner or later someone would came up with the same ideas and theories that he did but without the need of drugs helping him. Drugs are not necessary for the progress of humanity. They can sometimes speed it up at the risk of progressing the self-destruction of our civilisation. Not worth it. A slow but stable progress will do better than a quicker but unsure one. There's no hurry after all. We have about 5 billion years before we'll have to leave the Solar System.

Understanding calculus is not necessary for a man to live a normal life, while being clean from drugs helps a lot. I already mentioned that the characteristics of amphetamine allow anyone to learn more efficiently for an exam. But it is not worth the price afterwards. I'm not saying that drugs don't have any short-time benefits, because they do, but the downsides are not simply worth them.

I agree completely.

I never claimed no such thing. I said that drinking alcohol in reasonable ammount is not dangerous. Drunking oneself unconcious, action under greater influence and alcoholism on the other hand, are. It's just that in case of ethanol, starting to drink doesn't equal becoming an acoloholic, while starting doing hard drugs pretty much makes you a druggie, with no space for reasonable ammount or frequencies of taking the stuff.

I beg to differ!

You're exposing alcohol's 100'000 a year worldwide while forgetting about tabacco's 440'000 annualy in the USA only.

It depends on what are the reasons for one to discuss on the Internet. I myself on one hand do it to prove other people wrong (seriously now, who doesn't like the ego boost?), but on the other I never know when may I stimulate a discussion in which I will hear from the opposite side an argument which will make me think, help me learn something, show a flaw in my logic and enlighten me, make me develop, push me towards perfection, etc, etc, that sort of thing. Nonetheless, I love this song and this version makes me literally laugh out loud.

M, a little more self-distance would be helpful there. Intelligence is the strenght of an unit, but when one is visibly oversensitive about words insulting it, it becomes his weakness which can easily be abused and used to take advantage of him.

EDIT: typos