report this user
Jun 17 adam.smith commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Weeded Out.
@16 -- you may disagree with them, but since you bring up "the medical term for addiction," the American Psychiatric Association, the country's principal medical authority on this, does list marijuana as an addictive substance. They also introduced in DSM-5 behavioral addictions under which they currently only have gambling. The way I understand the science, addiction is much more an issue of brain chemistry than of physical dependence, which can vary strongly.
E.g. take cigarette smoking, which I think everyone agrees is addictive -- the physical withdrawal effects for people who quit smoking are quite minor and they can be fully remedied using nicotine patches. Nevertheless, very few people actually succeed to quit smoking using nicotine patches -- because the idea that addiction is mostly about the physical side effects of withdrawal is simply wrong.
Feb 15 adam.smith commented on New Head of Kinsey Institute: "I think human sexuality must be viewed in the context of relationships.".
I'm with the majority here. I'd say it's pretty difficult (though likely not impossible) to have sex with someone you don't have some type of relationship with -- that can be a stable monogamous relationship between two people, you can be regular fuckbuddies, or you can have a relationship as two people having a one-night stand (etc. etc.). I'd wait to see what she actually does.
Nov 11, 2015 adam.smith commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Self-Fulfilling Assholery.
I'm actually with @20 in general. I don't have much hope for the relationship, but I do think it may well be emotionally necessary or at least beneficial for the LW to at least give it a try (and who knows? See above. Some people do change). I feel very uneasy about going into counseling with an agenda, but I don't see why you couldn't do the same thing without a therapist.
Tell her that her jealousy is making it impossible for you to stay in the relationship. Ask her to tell you what specifically it would take for her to dial back (massively) on her controlling behavior. Have a clear sense of what is and what isn't acceptable to you beforehand. If you can't agree, leave. If she doesn't stick to her end of the bargain, leave.
I think you have maybe a 10% chance that will work. But a) isn't love all about improbable odds? and b) in the remaining 90%, you will at least have some degree of certainty that you tried everything and should have very few lingering doubts.
Nov 7, 2015 adam.smith commented on Christian Pastor Calls for Execution of Gays at Event Attended by Ted Cruz.
raindrop @35, meet Jesus:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
(Matthew 5:32)
To use the terms of our dear reverend, this strikes me as "the highest level of clarity". And it's not some obscure old testament verse, nor Paul writing in letters. It's Jesus himself. And he doesn't just say it once. No, this is so important to him that he repeats it again in Matthew 19:9.
So I think it is very clear that, in the biblical-literalist sense, Ronald and Nancy Reagan were engaging in adultery (since, as you have helpfully pointed out, the divorce was not due to adultery). So yeah, anyone who thinks the bible is the literal word of god better go and stone Nancy Reagan. (And that doesn't even cover the astrology).
Nov 5, 2015 adam.smith commented on Gay Guys React to Racist Grindr Profiles.
I'm sorry you feel like you have to assume the worst about your interlocutors. I wasn't lying, I was inadvertently mistaken. I explained & apologized for the mixup.

If you actually believed your bullshit about the first amendment, then you'd also think you have no right not to be murdered--because hey, it doesn't say nobody else gets to kill you, right?

Well, murderers are not tried for violating the constitution. They're tried for breaking homicide statutes. The analog to broad free speech claims based on the 1st amendment would be if someone claimed that murder violates your 8th amendment rights.

I don't think the first amendment is the only thing that matters in free speech, nor did I ever say that. I do _know_ that the only thing the first amendment (which was the only thing I responded to if you care to re-read my @37) protects against, though, is government interference. That was the entirety of my first comment here.

I don't know why you think you know what I think about corporations and free speech. FWIW, I think the role to which critical information infrastructure is privatized is a bad thing. I'd love to have significant publicly owned media (though we both know that's never going to happen in the US). But I do think that there is a strong case for media and social media to contain some degree of moderation. Looking at YouTube comments, say, gives us a pretty good sense that entirely unconstrained speech doesn't promote diversity of viewpoints, but crowds out a significant share of viewpoints. Frequently those least represented in the public sphere anyway.

And I do think that different media platforms aren't just allowed to, but should think about what type of community they want to build and what that means for the type of speech they want to moderate or not. If there is, on one side of the spectrum, something like 4Chan, or even Reddit, with hardly any limits on speech, why shouldn't there also be fora where people can go and expect _not_ to be exposed to certain forms of hate speech. (And, you know, if some crazy Christians want a social network where everyone who says something "blasphemous" gets banned, I'm good with that, too).
Nov 5, 2015 adam.smith commented on Gay Guys React to Racist Grindr Profiles.
Also, why the hate? If having a debate makes you so angry, why are you here? I didn't hit you. I disagreed with you.
Nov 5, 2015 adam.smith commented on Gay Guys React to Racist Grindr Profiles.
geeez -- in @37, I responded to comment @22 (quite clearly"ing it) and after you then responded directly to me on that, I thought that was you. I apologize for getting that wrong, but then your comment @39 doesn't make any sense. If I'm right about the 1st amendment, why did you come after me?
Nov 5, 2015 adam.smith commented on Gay Guys React to Racist Grindr Profiles.
Eudaemonic -- except you didn't just say "free speech," you said "First Amendment." And that just doesn't apply here at all. This isn't a constitutional issue.
You can argue this is a regulatory issue: Some European countries actually do have more regulations on what media must publish (e.g. political ads). This seems very much at odds with the US tradition on regulating speech, but then the FCC regulates some weird stuff, so... Or, of course, one could just nationalize major communication industries, which then would fall under 1st amendment protection. I'm going to say that seems even less in line with US practice...
Or it's a moral issue: there is certainly an argument to be made to maximize free speech in all spheres and to pressure private companies to not restrict speech on their platforms. The same way Dan can favor companies' restricting speech without suggesting any legislative action, so can you favor them _not_ restricting any speech without making a legal argument. It's a much more complex argument than you make it out to be, starting with the fact that determining what speech occurs under your company's label is also a form of freedom of expression. But it's certainly a legitimate discussion, and a reasonable solution very likely is some type of middle ground.
But as soon as you start calling this not just an issue of free expression but one of First Amendment rights, you're just being ignorant.
Nov 4, 2015 adam.smith commented on Gay Guys React to Racist Grindr Profiles.
@22: "Not sure when this country forgot about the first amendment."

It seems to me the person forgetting the 1st amendment is you. As a reminder:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's about Congress making laws. It's not about every asshole having the right to get their shit published anywhere they want without any consequences to how people feel about them.
Nov 3, 2015 adam.smith commented on You Don't Know Ms. Banks.
I have to agree. Dan really did blow this one. How on earth is it not titled "Saving Ms. Banks"?