Eva-Lise Carlstrom wrote:
>1.) Tony, please start spelling "tobacco" correctly; it's really starting
>to get to me after this many repetitions.
I thought that was the British spelling of tobacco.
>2.) I also find it very strange, to say the least, that Nate would
>advocate watching TV on drugs as harmless, in contrast to camping on
>drugs.
I'm afraid I don't see whats so strange here... I was trying to contrast
passive activities with active ones. For instance, I had the misfortune of
attending Lollapalooza ... a large rock concert ... a couple of years ago.
It should have been a fairly passive activity. People were throwing an
individual up in the air using their blankets. Pretty soon the activity
caught on and idiots were doing it with bed sheets and sleeping bags. It
seemed all at once ... but more probably in the space of a half hour ...
emergency crews were coming through the crowds carting off head injuries.
Following that about every fifteen minutes a security guy would come by
making sure noone was doing anything stupid or illegal. I guess ideally
someone could have organized an area for idiots with blankets to hurt
themselves, and spectators could enter at their own risk ... instead I had
to put up with being policed by overzealous goons for the remainder of the
day.
>The safety of camping on drugs is of course dependent on the type
>and amount of drug, the severity of camping conditions, and the
>togetherness of the person involved.
I guess we disagree on the dangers of camping. I could care what happens
to an individual camper, but unfortunately one person's irresponsibility is
will affect my camping experience. Pretty soon Rangers will be denying me
responsible access to the wilderness because the irresponsibility of
idiots. This is particularly true here in the Midwest where wilderness is
a scarce resource and idiots are a commodity. I suspect that perhaps
further west people are more willing to let wilderness and idiots reach
homeostasis.
I contend that even when jungle explorers are camping in a KOA campground
drinking one 3.2 beer the consequences of a stupid action are more severe
than at home. Really this is a pet peeve of mine ... watching people do
unsafe things with coleman stoves, hatchets, fire arms, etc. just pisses
me off because eventually I end up paying for the consequences of their
actions...even if its just a slightly higher campground fee to support the
ranger who comes around to make sure I'm OK.
>But most drugs make their users more suggestible and thus greatly increase
the >dangers of television viewing for people under their influence.
I find it strange that you see nothing weird about getting into a
suggestible state as long as you control what is being suggested. In what
way are the memes propagated by TV dangerous? Are you saying that by
watching TV on drugs I'm more likely to go out and emulate Jason from
Friday the 13th or to believe I can fly ala Art Linkletter's daughter? Or
are you saying by watching TV on drugs I'll go out and purchase bounty
paper towels over the store brand? What is the danger of exposing myself
to TV in a suggestible state?
Eva
Nate