Is Testogel a controlled drug? Answer requested fast please.

Is Testogel a controlled drug? Answer requested fast please.

Author
Discussion

Art0ir

9,401 posts

169 months

Sunday 7th October 2012
quotequote all
Somewhatfoolish said:
Actually, yeah, I am being a bit silly. Mostly due to all the legal, socially acceptable, alcohol I've been imbibing today.

PH if you want this discussion move it to another thread, I am happy to engage...
I'm simply stepping back and going to watch the thread evolve. Your arguments are certainly "fresh" one might say, so I look forward to some interesting conversation as it continues. For what it's worth I'm a libertarian as it is, perhaps you just caught me off guard with your chicken penetration anecdote.

Papa Hotel

12,760 posts

181 months

Sunday 7th October 2012
quotequote all
Don't forget the incest that he supports as it does no harm.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/scottish...

No harm at all, no.

Art0ir

9,401 posts

169 months

Sunday 7th October 2012
quotequote all
Papa Hotel said:
Don't forget the incest that he supports as it does no harm.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/scottish...

No harm at all, no.
What harm do you suggest was done by the act of incest?

Papa Hotel

12,760 posts

181 months

Sunday 7th October 2012
quotequote all
Evidently none, but I'd like to see someone defend their actions.

Incest; a game the whole family can play.

Art0ir

9,401 posts

169 months

Sunday 7th October 2012
quotequote all
Papa Hotel said:
Evidently none, but I'd like to see someone defend their actions.

Incest; a game the whole family can play.
Defend what actions? The sex in the elevator? The distinct lack of dental care? I daren't. However I fail to see how they're in any way related to incest?

Papa Hotel

12,760 posts

181 months

Sunday 7th October 2012
quotequote all
Art0ir said:
Defend what actions? The sex in the elevator? The distinct lack of dental care? I daren't. However I fail to see how they're in any way related to incest?
Ah right, you don't understand what incest is, I see.

incest /insest/
Noun:
1. Sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.
2. The crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.

The story I've linked to, if you concentrate really hard when you read it, you'll see they are brother and sister. If you look at the definition of incest, you'll see that by virtue of being brother and sister, they have committed incest. I hope I've managed to clear that up for you.

Art0ir

9,401 posts

169 months

Sunday 7th October 2012
quotequote all
Papa Hotel said:
Ah right, you don't understand what incest is, I see.

incest /insest/
Noun:
1. Sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.
2. The crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.

The story I've linked to, if you concentrate really hard when you read it, you'll see they are brother and sister. If you look at the definition of incest, you'll see that by virtue of being brother and sister, they have committed incest. I hope I've managed to clear that up for you.
You're just running around the room trying to keep a step ahead of me. You suggested that incest was harmful. I asked what harm the act of incest did. You asked me to defend their actions. I asked if by "actions" you meant by the public sex and lack of personal hygiene. Again, you jumped back onto incest.

I don't see why anyone should have to defend it. The idea of incest repulses me on a biological level, but provided they don't contribute to the gene pool I see no harm.

So why don't you just make your point and be done with it? I can only hope given the hour that you've been consuming alcohol and that may have gone some way to contribute to your lack coherency.

moreflaps

746 posts

154 months

Sunday 7th October 2012
quotequote all
Art0ir said:
The idea of incest repulses me on a biological level, but provided they don't contribute to the gene pool I see no harm.

.
Well the only way of guaranteeing that would be for one or both to be sterilised... You miss the issue of continuing psychological damage tho'

dingg

3,974 posts

218 months

Sunday 7th October 2012
quotequote all
Papa Hotel said:
Don't forget the incest that he supports as it does no harm.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/scottish...

No harm at all, no.
just your average 'jocks' IMO

FiF

43,963 posts

250 months

Sunday 7th October 2012
quotequote all
Papa Hotel said:
I've been reading back through some of your old threads, it's very apparent that you think you're on some higher plane than the lawmakers.
This ^^, precisely this, OP filed in Darwin drawer.

andy_s

19,397 posts

258 months

Sunday 7th October 2012
quotequote all
Papa Hotel said:
You mustn't have read the bit where he said he purchased opium. He's a heroin addict already. A junkie, if you will.

Don't underestimate the cost of opiate addiction to this country, a huge proportion of the prison population is dependent on heroin substitutes and that's just looking at it from a purely monetary point of view.

From a more Daily Mail angle, the human cost is catastrophic:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2085711/...
If you include 'alcohol' within the set of 'drug' then I agree with the Mail and yourself, it's a shame the Mail chose to use heroin as the example though, it's a minority sport but doubtless the most likely to cause outrage amongst its middle-class readership. They could have done a very interesting piece about the damage alcohol does to society and people and unborn children, but I fear that reader interest would have been slight, as all 'junkies' like to bury their heads in the sand.
Anyway, just off down the pub.

OP - thanks for an interesting albeit slightly bizarre thread, I'm still not sure whether you're a junky or mad scientist though. I have suspicions you may also be a pheasant plucker after your 'who came first, the chicken' anecdote.

andy_s

19,397 posts

258 months

Sunday 7th October 2012
quotequote all
FiF said:
Papa Hotel said:
I've been reading back through some of your old threads, it's very apparent that you think you're on some higher plane than the lawmakers.
This ^^, precisely this, OP filed in Darwin drawer.
Do we all agree with all laws?
Laws tend to be temporal, in a few decades we may look back at some laws today and find them highly amusing, as we do with prohibition now.

Having said that. even when the law is an ass, you can't expect dispensation because you've intellectualised a sound reason why it doesn't affect you in some wine-fuelled inner monologue; rather like being caught doing 90 on a motorway at 2 in the morning and all that.

famfarrow

677 posts

153 months

Sunday 7th October 2012
quotequote all
TVR1 said:
Not quite. The moral of this story is something quite different. The OP is not 'a victim'. He is a result of his own weaknesses. Should he choose to attempt to get over his addictions, well, indeed, he should be applauded. But he must not be applauded for having his weakness in the first place. a small, subtle but quite important difference.
+1 Exactly this, its about time more people realise drug addicition is not a disease. Labelling it as such is an insult to those who have no control over how they became ill.

Papa Hotel

12,760 posts

181 months

Sunday 7th October 2012
quotequote all
Art0ir said:
You're just running around the room trying to keep a step ahead of me. You suggested that incest was harmful. I asked what harm the act of incest did. You asked me to defend their actions. I asked if by "actions" you meant by the public sex and lack of personal hygiene. Again, you jumped back onto incest.

I don't see why anyone should have to defend it. The idea of incest repulses me on a biological level, but provided they don't contribute to the gene pool I see no harm.

So why don't you just make your point and be done with it? I can only hope given the hour that you've been consuming alcohol and that may have gone some way to contribute to your lack coherency.
I wasn't asking you to defend the actions of that pair at all, I posted it up for the OP to defend; it wasn't you who posted the incest chicken-fking story and got all on his twisted moral high-horse when it was met with revulsion.

I wasn't drinking last night, I was up at stupid o'clock because I had a two year old with nightmares. I was tired but I've read back through my posts and they seem pretty coherent to me, save for a lack of understanding between you and I about who I'd like to see defend brother/sister sex. smile

Somewhatfoolish

Original Poster:

4,336 posts

185 months

Saturday 13th October 2012
quotequote all
Papa Hotel said:
You mustn't have read the bit where he said he purchased opium. He's a heroin addict already. A junkie, if you will.

Don't underestimate the cost of opiate addiction to this country, a huge proportion of the prison population is dependent on heroin substitutes and that's just looking at it from a purely monetary point of view.

From a more Daily Mail angle, the human cost is catastrophic:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2085711/...
I have never taken heroin in my life, you silly man.

Which is not to say that I have a problem with heroin addicts. It is just to point out how incorrect your assumptions are.

Somewhatfoolish

Original Poster:

4,336 posts

185 months

Saturday 13th October 2012
quotequote all
Slink said:
umm WTF. you fked a dead chicken??

that is quite, quite screwed up
no, I was using it to prove a point, which I believe still stands. There are different ways of assessing whether something is wrong or right, y'see... now while I could have chosen a less striking example, it would have been less lulzy.

Somewhatfoolish

Original Poster:

4,336 posts

185 months

Saturday 13th October 2012
quotequote all
TVR1 said:
Not quite. The moral of this story is something quite different. The OP is not 'a victim'. He is a result of his own weaknesses. Should he choose to attempt to get over his addictions, well, indeed, he should be applauded. But he must not be applauded for having his weakness in the first place. a small, subtle but quite important difference.
Absolutely agree with this.

In fact there is a HILARIOUS Chris Rock sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4

Somewhatfoolish

Original Poster:

4,336 posts

185 months

Saturday 13th October 2012
quotequote all
andy_s said:
OP - thanks for an interesting albeit slightly bizarre thread, I'm still not sure whether you're a junky or mad scientist though. I have suspicions you may also be a pheasant plucker after your 'who came first, the chicken' anecdote.
final post for the moment in this thread, no family or animal fking in my past rofl

I brought it up to illustrate the difference in how different people evaluate the rights or wrongs of certain actions, and I was deliberately provocative in doing so because that illustrates the point in a more simple way.

I end by once again totally recommending that book (The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion - by Jonathan Haidt). While there are no moral insights, the psychological insights in terms of understanding how different people "understand" right and wrong are such that I feel any intellectually curious person should read the thing; much of it is of course something that most of us understand at a gut level but having the axes delineated can only enhance future comprehension.

And a final thanks for all of those you have given me supportive words. While I was not posting here for support, I do hugely appreciate it, and I also understand that in some circumstances it may have been hard to post such, and consequently in those cases am doubly grateful.

Papa Hotel

12,760 posts

181 months

Saturday 13th October 2012
quotequote all
Somewhatfoolish said:
I have never taken heroin in my life, you silly man.

Which is not to say that I have a problem with heroin addicts. It is just to point out how incorrect your assumptions are.
I didn't say you had taken heroin, I said you were already a heroin addict. Your purchase of opium is a ball-hair away from heroin, both powerful opiates, both will fulfil the craving for the other. In that regard, yes, you're already a heroin addict.

Silent1

19,761 posts

234 months

Sunday 14th October 2012
quotequote all
Papa Hotel said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
I have never taken heroin in my life, you silly man.

Which is not to say that I have a problem with heroin addicts. It is just to point out how incorrect your assumptions are.
I didn't say you had taken heroin, I said you were already a heroin addict. Your purchase of opium is a ball-hair away from heroin, both powerful opiates, both will fulfil the craving for the other. In that regard, yes, you're already a heroin addict.
That must make me a heroin addict then as I'm prescribed fentanyl and that's much stronger than heroin!