how are you not a brainwashed conformist if you do try drugs simply to break the perception of being a conformist?

i've never tasted coffee or smoked a cigarette. not for any reason other than the fact that i was raised by a bunch of chain smoking rednecks and the very thought of trying either is a very disgusting notion to me

You mean peer pressured into trying drugs? You can only be pressured into doing something you don't want to do, otherwise it wouldn't really be "peer pressure", it would just a be a group activity.. and so, why wouldn't someone want to try drugs?

why would someone?

What makes you think people do drugs to break the perception of being a conformist? Most people who do drugs do it because they find them pleasurable... for some I suppose it might be a rebellion thing, but if they want to be non-conformist, they could just as easily, pierce their noses, get a tattoo, or do some other non-confirming thing...

I think it's pretty common knowledge that drugs are pleasurable... and if that's not enough, just for the sake of trying, same reason people try eating an octopus at a Chinese restaurant or go to some new bar/club that just got opened up 2 weeks ago...

you are the one using the term 'conformist' - my point was simply to point out the lapse in logic with the idea that by expecting a person to behave in a specific way to avoid being labled a conformist, they have became by definition, a conformist as they are conforming to another set of behaviors and expectations.

the whole idea of conformity in the way you are using it is stupid. a tattoo or piercing is a "non-conforming thing" - what about all the other idiots conforming the to idea that a tattoo or piercing is the non-conforming thing to do, so they do it, thus becoming a conformist.

meth is pleasurable? there are no negative consquences to using heroin? oxycotin is just another prescription drug?

you genuinely can't understand why people would set boundaries for themselves? and because they are not aligned with YOUR boundaries, they are "conformists"?

why don't more people punch people in the face who piss them off? thats pleasurable.

woj the reason i have never had heroin coke or any other class a drug is because of the negative effect. not because i dont want to because everyone else doesnt. i just dont want to fuck up my head and mess simple things up.

i have been told the good things about them and i have been told the bad. from the data the bad outways the good, it is my choice and i say no. there is nothing douschebaggish or conformist about that. i simply dont want to fuck up my life.

i guess a healthy diet makes you a conformist, because afterall, as the logic goes.... living on nacho's, cake, ice cream and beer is pleasurable, so that would be the diet of a non-conformist, which i guess has more positive connotations than i realized.

The whole "conformist" thing, was a poor word choice, it was just meant to illustrate that people do certain things without a logical reason...

There is really no need to bring meth or heroin into the discussion.. obviously for someone who has never tried drugs doing meth or heroin is not a good idea... Just like getting into a ferrari might not be a good idea for an un-experienced driver... for some people hard drugs may never be a good idea, just like I wouldn't let my mom drive a ferrari either, I know she would hurt herself...

Lets get off the "conformist" idea, it was a poor word choice, you are right...
and there is nothing wrong with a healthy diet, you eat healthy diet, because you want to be healthy... so that is completely logical and makes sense..

what's not logical is: I get hammered with alcohol every day, smoke 2 packs per day, but I will never smoke weed...

ahh... sorry. i just misunderstood you and wasn't paying attention and wrongly assumed your position.

people are irrational though, thats how we are. all of us. we cant possibly intellectualize a near infinite number of sights, sounds, sensations, colors, shapes, personal delimas, global delimas, wars, suffering and so on... so we take short cuts. we stereotype, we try very hard to break the world into black and white and create rules and boundaries for ourselves - not because they are rational or logical or correct, but because we would overload ourselves otherwise trying to figure shit out and think everything through to a logical conclusion.

we simply tell ourselves "this is good... that is bad... and gee, i really wonder who will win american idol tonight" to get by.

Most likely, if it weren't for alcohol, we would not have settled into permanent settlements.

The discovery and interest in alcohol brought with it the need to harvest large quantities of grain, and store large, heavy fermenting vessels while the product fermented.

And so, we converted as a hunting/gathering society and settled in cities. Civilization was born.

I agree.....

sitting on the fence on this one

There is a 2 fundamental difference between alcohol and other drugs. Alchohol doesn't have any bad effects on health (unless you are a heavyyy drinker). Also it doesn't create dependance (yes it does for some people but it's not even comparable to illegal drugs). Someone will probably mention that cigarette is bad for health and creates dependance, and I agree with you. I don't see why it shouldn't be treated as other drugs (except it would be hard to accomplish).

Huh,in Croatia will be civil war if alcohol will be banned.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

What's so good? Uh the time when you're actually DRUNK.

FACT: maz


:wetkiss

are you totally fucking retarded? seriously, you say some of the stupidest shit said on this board.

people began settling during the neolithic era because of agriculture and the ability to grow enough quantity of food to sustain themselves through the year... they did not settle because they finally had "agricultural skills necessary to make booze and party"

are you getting it?

people settled because they could grow food. i mean this is like 4th grade stuff.

How do you find something pleasurable before you try it?

well you need to drink a LOT before you get alcoholic, its not the same with other drugs + if you drink it in small amounts it is not bad for your body ... maybe thats why it is socially accepted :winkwink:

Err. No, I'm not _totally_ fucking retarded - at least in my estimation.

But I do get the feeling you have a much higher opinion of yourself than is warranted. :2 cents:

Quite a few people in academic circles agree that we likely settled because of the discovery of beer. I've heard the theory in more than one collegiate lecture, and have said the same in many lectures, myself.

Anyone with basic sense should be able to see how this parallels what you were taught in 4th grade, and hold so dear. The requirements for beer production are heavily based in agriculture.

Bottom line: It's a commonly accepted historical theory.

http://www.beerinstitute.org/tier.asp?bid=132
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9619482 60
http://beeradvocate.com/articles/721
http://beeradvocate.com/articles/673
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...0802715524&z=y
http://www.beerinstitute.org/tier.asp?bid=129
http://www.portsmouthbrewery.com/htm...oryofbeer.html
http://www.amazon.com/Beer-History-C.../dp/0380780518

Could go on and on here... but I assume you know how to use google yourself. Might wanna try that next time you find yourself in a similar situation.

i agree for sure

yeah right Einstein... "man started farming because of beer" - because they wanted grain to ferment and had no interested in food, growing food and sustaining themselves through the winter/year - and how do you know that? because a site like "the beer institute" or "beer advocate" told you so.

seriously, how stupid can you be?

ok now I feel bad..NOT!

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Im on gfy for 5 mins and the BS ive read already is truly amazing. This place just manages to attract to biggest fucking imbeciles on the internet.

True dat

You sir have the IQ of fucking donkey!

Alchohol is the most most abused addictive drug on the planet. Name another drug that leads to more deaths in this country. You think there are more violent crimes due to marijuana or alchohol? You think more domestic violence because of alchohol or marijauna? You can wrap up all the drugs together and the dui deaths do not come close to alchohol alone.

You sir win the trophy for biggest fucking idiot on GFY in the last twenty minutes. Congrats.

Annual Causes of Death in the United States
Tobacco 435,0001
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,0001
Alcohol 85,000 1
Microbial Agents 75,0001
Toxic Agents 55,0001
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,3471
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,0002
Suicide 30,6223
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,0001
Homicide 20,3084
Sexual Behaviors 20,0001
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,0001, 5
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,6006
Marijuana 0

I think it was Euripides that said "Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish." I guess the same can be said for stupidity.

Who said they had no interest in a stable source of food?

It was a perk.

What we _know_ regarding the dawn of civilization is very little, as recorded history didn't come along until much later. Nearly all of it is inference and theory... including what your fourth grade teacher taught you.

And even before recorded history came along, some of the first recorded elements of society (such as Sumerian prayer chants) regard the making of beer and beer recipes... and we know that people were making fermented beverages long before that. Beer's had a large impact on the development of our society... hell, the whole reason the Mayflower touched down at Plymouth Rock, instead of moving on, as stated in the ship logs - was to begin to replenish its beer supplies.

Is it unbelievable that an interest in exploiting a new technology might have predated the need to solve for starvation in our history?

Is this all really that hard for you to conceptualize?

The idea that civilization started because of the desire to ferment is a widely accepted theory... I've heard it said in lectures regarding subjects that have had nothing to do with zymurgy, and not all of my sources up there (nor those from google) were from beer advocates. Like I suggested, do your own research.

Or don't... I mean, you always have that fourth grade education to fall back on.

wow.

i dont know what to say man.


wow.


you think that somehow it makes sense that humans began to grow food, raise animals and settle to a sedentary lifestyle rather than a nomadic lifestyle - i.e. chasing food, because of their deep rooted desire to ferment grain... a notion which assumes that just surviving by being able to create a stable source of food, or "perk" as you've now called it was not the driving factor.


its been a long time since i've studied anthropology but you don't have to be a genius to understand that basic survival needs and creating stable food supplies obviously took precedence over getting drunk or creating alcohol.



you've just made me and others dumber.

asshole.

The idea isn't that they were hurting for food when civilization started, but that there was adequate food supplies to meet the demand, which shouldn't be that far of a reach. No one actually knows what the hell happened - none of us were there.

Really, man... believe what you want. I give two shits.

Actually pretty good discussion 'tween pleasurerpays and D.

Could do with a little less "asshole" and "fucking idiot" 's though.

unbelievable how people can think like this. Lets be happy with the little bits of freedom we still have, slowly everything is being controlled by the government. Id rather have a 100% legalization of everything, instead of banning of everything. I really dont understand how anyone would want more and more bannings laid onto you by the governments to be a 100% controlled sheep.

adequate food supplies to meet demand?

do you even have an inkling of how dumb you sound? how can you simultaneously be constantly chasing food out of necessity to survive AND also SETTLE because you "have adequate food supplies to meet demand". funny that you would use the term "hunter - gatherer" and not understand that "hunting" and "gathering" requires you to go do it... "hunting" is not the act of animals coming to you and throwing themselves on the fire to be eaten.

seriously!? what the fuck... did you learn human history from Bugs Bunny cartoons?



and you're right... no one knows what happened ... well, no one except for all of those in the modern world who are silly enough to believe in the extensive archaeological records and data to date.


again... let me help you with some VERY basic anthropological facts.

people began to farm out of necessity (you know... basic feast or famine type stuff). they learned to grow food. with growing food, they began to settle... with that, began to learn that certain animals could be domesticated as a food source and that they could grow the food to feed them.

much more is known about these simple facts and the chain of events and timelines around the world than is known about the origins of alcohol and its first uses and intentional creation.

but according to you, "neolithic era" is synonymous with "fermentation" and "alcohol" and growing food and raising animals was just a "perk" of settling down to get drunk. you go further to assert that its a "widely held opinion" of events while citing beer sites as a source.

its definately one of the dumber things ever posted on this board... but in a weird way, thats a huge achievement here, so i guess you've made your mark anyway.

sorry... just my style. its "gofuckyourself" not "pleaseloveeachother"
;)

That's how pleasurepays operates. Don't say what he wants to hear, he's all over you with insults rather than just keeping to the discussion.

But I agree, it's a good discussion otherwise. :thumbsup

really? i like to think that i stick to the conversation, make the argument and include insults.

I didn't say you don't keep to the conversation, I said you do that rather than JUST keeping to the conversation. As in, doing more than JUST the one thing.

i am great at multi-tasking... what can i say. i'm amazing.
some have it... some don't.

I agree. :2 cents:

Would be something if the guy could actually put his insecurities aside long enough to carry on a truly thoughtful conversation.

I knew, going into it, what I was getting myself into... but was hoping someone else might jump in one way or the other, and reinstall a bit of civility... or, hell, maybe I'd even witness Pleasurepays pulling that rod out of his ass... but it began to feel like I was pounding my head against the wall, and I'd just be repeating myself, so time to cut out.

Anyone interested in the subject-material should check things out for themselves... plenty of info out there.

You're both intelligent enough to know what a lame excuse the whole "it's gofuckyourself" argument is.

Once in a while isn't it nice to just have a discussion about something and that's it?.... just a discussion.


Since poor Jayeff passed away I find less and less of them here, and it's pretty sad.



As far as THIS discussion goes (such as it is) I think you're both at least partically correct. While most civilizations throughout history did work hard at covering the staples of food and shelter (no question about that), many DID however hold the making of booze, bouza, grain alchohol or wine-like fermentations as a high priority. Some historians theorize that alchohol shows up in history dating back to prehistoric times.

I can see it being so. Back then I'm sure people used all sorts of concoctions and substances to "make life a little more bearable." Think of all the eras in known history. In the time of the Roman empire the booze was certainly flowing. In the wild wild west I'm sure some travellers must have rode many days out of their way to hit a settlement so's they could wash the dust from their throats with a few shots of deadeye. Such towns would have had to make it a priority to have alchohol on hand or risk being shot to pieces no doubt.

Straying from the topic, but I can't imagine the number of people that wouldn't exist were it not for the presence of alcholol. :D Seriously, none of you have heard at least one unwilling parent say "I was drunk" and 9 months later BAM. I know tons.


I wouldn't say booze was of the highest priority in history, but as people were growing/making/processing their foodstuffs for winter etc I have no doubt they made it a point to put aside a little extra so they'd have something to drink, party, or otherwise perform their dance rituals with.

I mean really, what's a good dance ritual without a little goof juice?

I agree with that. Even had a lawyer who was big in the liqueor industry tell me that as well

a "thoughtful conversation" does not begin with baiting people into what you know full well is a controversial and poorly supported argument... then once you feel you set the hook, start saying "why don't you read "beeradvocate.com" and educate youself" as if they have an unbiased view on beer and somehow have more credibility than the entire history of anthropology, every educational institution and anthropologist in the world who doesn't support your "position"

at the end of the day its arguing about the chicken and the egg... the primary difference is that in this case there is endless evidence to support one side and almost zero to support the other.

and another fucking thing that irritates me about idiots like you is your condescention while pretending to be on higher moral ground... you start from a weak position and include insanely arrogant statements like "people should educate themselves...." in defense of your position as if you don't have to make any sense at all and if people "don't get it" then its their fault for not wasting their own time trying to prove themselves and you that water is wet.





pay careful attention here... this info will serve you well in the future... when you show up on a forum called "go fuck yourself" and start insisting that 2+2=5 because the pee wee herman fan page said so... you can safely expect the gloves to come off and to be rediculed.... and the fact that you are being rediculed doesn't make your position any less rediculous just because you decided to change course and play the martyr after the fact.

:2 cents:

i can understand if someone says something like "XYZ MIGHT have played a role in..." but thats not what was said.

What was said specifically is that mankind entered into the Neolithic period BECAUSE of the desire to ferment grain and create alcohol... namely beer.

i have several wine sites and written quite a bit about the history of wine, the chronology of wine on this planet, its use etc. I am fairly familiar with the history of alcohol and wine. its origins are murkey and HIGHLY desputed... and there no evidence to support the idea that alcohol existed in the sense that we're talking about until they were several millinea into the neolithic period... not at its start.

for those not playing along... that means people had already began to make the transition from migratory hunter/gatherers to sedentary people, settle, grow food and domesticate animals for a couple thousand years BEFORE alcohol was discovered, deliberately made and consumed

furthermore, evidence of the use of wine predates beer by several thousand years. and the topic in the context of this conversation is "grain" and "beer" were the root causes for people settling down and developing agricultural communities. beer came very late into the "alcohol" game and its consumption. honey, rice and grapes were used to make wines WELL before "beer" was discovered.

a more painful fact to accept for "D" is that the start of the Neolithic period predates the first evidence of wine by a couple thousand years.

i really didn't think this stuff was debated or something that was a matter of opinion. its a simple matter of archiological record and what has either been proven to be fact or what the known evidence suggests.

having a bizarre idea and pointing to a bizarre website with an agenda to back it up is weak and pathetic, and had considered that to be self evident... hence the redicule, being that its so obviously impossible and so obviously not a "widely held belief" as was claimed.


:2 cents:

I said it was a widely accepted theory... and it is. No amount of kicking or screaming you choose to engage in is going to change that.

I'd be interested as to what wine websites you run, and see what works you've published in that regard.

A man of repute in the beer community, myself, I know several people in the wine community... and I'm sure we know some of the same people, if, in fact, you're not bullshitting us. Which, honestly, I'd find hard to believe at this point. You seem to be epitomizing the adage that 'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.'

Regardless of what that's about, you're mistaken in your statement that wine predates beer... especially with the emphasis of certainty you place on it. Mead, sure... wine, probably not so much. In fact, The History Of Food By Maguelonne Toussaint-Samat claims... and I quote, "Beer came before wine everywhere, and it is sometimes claimed that Dionysus became the god of wine only after reigning as Sebazios, the archaic god of beer. Plenty of other sources on the concept that beer came before wine.

Not to mention the other "certainties" you're shovelling out... alcohol post-dating civilization... as is the entire principal of what I'm saying here - no such certainty exists.

As far as sources, I've referred to the New York Times, and published books in addition to the beer site resources... and, in addition to that, you can feel free to peruse the 1.86 million returns that "beer civilization' returns in google yourself.

And at least I'm bothering to use sources... you're just stating blatant misrepresentations without so much as a footnote.

For someone who seems so worried about people spreading false information, you seem to be shovelling it out pretty thick, yourself. :2 cents:

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You are a pretty intelligent lad.

I highly doubt anyone played nomad once they found what they needed.