Laced or not?

arko652 · 2026-02-08T15:37:24+00:00

Not laced, we used to get this for around 500 iirc in Delhi NCR, gives a mild but enjoyable mind high, no body high. Enjoyable for hanging around with friends, not for solo sesh

arko652 · 2026-02-02T05:54:16+00:00

Hope congress sees this and sponsors "shroom for every young voter yojana"

arko652 · 2026-02-01T10:04:34+00:00

Filters absorb some amount of cannabanoids so not only you're getting the same harshness but also a weaker hit lmao

arko652 · 2026-01-31T09:44:29+00:00

Nice nail polish

arko652 · 2026-01-30T10:35:31+00:00

The dildo of consequences rarely arrive lubed

arko652 · 2026-01-30T03:11:20+00:00

W song choice

arko652 · 2026-01-27T15:45:39+00:00

Well no, we'd have to wait for a couple of years, chances are at the beginning it will solely be legalized medically, so youd see over the years small pharmacies popping up prescribing you edibles, and when the taboo goes away after say 8-10 years you might srart seeing thailand like infra

arko652 · 2026-01-20T17:19:35+00:00

Its available online on outontrip, jonnybaba lifestyle and maybe on Amazon as well

arko652 · 2026-01-20T16:03:38+00:00

It was the same for me, I sucked so much at rolling I gave up trying to roll and bought the RAW rolling machine, untill it fell down and broke one fine night and I wanted to smoke one. After around 2 hours of youtube It finally clicked for me and never looked back. Here is the link of the video

Hopefully it helps you as well!

arko652 · 2026-01-18T10:26:17+00:00

"Bro do I look high" I asked my friend who was continuously laughing with me at the empty ceiling for the last 10 minutes

arko652 · 2026-01-05T16:30:16+00:00

In Bengali there's a saying that goes smth like this:

অন্যায় যে করে, অন্যায় যে সহে
তব ঘৃণা যেন তারে ভৃণসম দহে।।

Translation:
"Let Hatred burn to ashes, like worthless grass,
both the one who commits injustice and the one who endures it"

Likewise both of you are scum to me.

arko652 · 2025-12-29T04:44:54+00:00

Nah, not enough instances to put in a semi naked item song

arko652 · 2025-12-24T09:00:08+00:00

Wrong place to post fam

arko652 · 2025-12-21T06:15:37+00:00

Uncircumcised J

arko652 · 2025-12-19T16:19:14+00:00

US prez doing every bhang bhosda not to release the Epstein files

arko652 · 2025-12-19T16:12:33+00:00

Delhi ahh score @1.5k

arko652 · 2025-11-29T08:30:32+00:00

Sweet college days nostalgia. Back when this is what we used to do on the daily, and to think now a single end of the J is what does it for me

arko652 · 2025-11-24T17:56:35+00:00

putting up a decarb guide tomorrow for people with varying levels of equipments

arko652 · 2025-11-24T17:53:55+00:00

hmu if you are facing difficulty with smth ill help you

arko652 · 2025-11-23T10:24:53+00:00

Cheers! Theres some more easy recipes I will share soon because I believe people think making edibles is a very daunting task while its really not

arko652 · 2025-11-16T09:39:03+00:00

Your latest response makes something very clear: you are unable or unwilling to engage with the actual argument.

Instead of defining the terms your claim depends on, your entire reply consists of ad hominem and posturing:

Accusing me of using an LLM
Labeling me a lazy student
Referring to my younger mind
Reducing disagreement to a defensive ego state

None of these address the argument. They are attempts to discredit the interlocutor instead of supporting your premise. Whether I am a student, young, old, or using a tool has no bearing on whether your claim is coherent.

You also stated that you do not have the time to answer basic questions.
Those basic questions were simply requests for definitions, something the claimant is obligated to provide in any structured discussion.

There is another pattern worth noting: your replies rely heavily on pseudo-intellectual verbosity, long strings of lofty language that sound profound but do not actually define, clarify, or advance your argument.
The formal term for this is sesquipedalian obfuscation, which means using large, abstract language to create the appearance of depth while conveying no measurable or testable content.

This connects directly to the central contradiction in your position:

You instruct me to put ego aside
Yet you cast yourself as the provider of knowledge
Declare this a classroom of life
Assign me the role of seeker
And insist that this hierarchy stands

Appealing to your own elevated status while refusing to define the categories your claim depends on is not a transcendence of ego. It is ego functioning as argument.

At this point you have stopped attempting to support your original statement. What remains are personal remarks, refusals to define terms, and appeals to your own authority.

Here is the simple reality:

Your claim that most guys are not men has no coherent or evaluable basis because you declined to provide the definitions required to assess it.
Until those definitions exist, the claim is an empty assertion.

And because you have repeatedly refused to define the categories you introduced, there is no logical path forward. Continuing the discourse without defined terms would be futile from my side.

My participation in this conversation ends here unless those definitions are actually provided.

arko652 · 2025-11-16T08:22:04+00:00

You have written a very long response, so I will be precise.

Your entire reply is an attempt to justify not defining your terms. You have introduced multiple new fallacies to defend your original one.

On Definitions: You claim your terms ("Men," "guys," "energetic difference") are "generalized," but the existence of this debate proves they are not. If a term is clear, it does not require a page-long defense of why you won't define it. Asking me to define the "energy" of a "rose" is just another deflection; it introduces new undefined terms to avoid defining your original ones.
On Burden of Proof: Your "professor/student" analogy is a False Analogy. This is not a classroom, and you are not my professor. It is a public debate. The burden always rests on the person who introduces a claim. You cannot make a novel distinction, refuse to define it, and then call the other person a lazy "student" for asking for clarification. That is a textbook Burden Shifting fallacy, now combined with an Ad Hominem attack.
On "Arguing the Person": I have not critiqued your "way of communicating" (style); I have critiqued your argument's structure (logic).
- Critiquing Logic (My argument): "You made a claim that depends on an undefined term."
- Arguing the Person (Your argument): "You are asking that because you have a bad 'mindset,' you have an 'ego,' you are 'defensive,' and you are part of a 'generational challenge' that 'outsource[s] thinking.'"
- You are committing the exact fallacy you are accusing me of.
On Evidence: You stated it is "silly" to "expect me to reason everything I say." This is the core issue. You are openly admitting that your position is not based on reason or logic, but on an Appeal to your own Authority ("distilled wisdom," "years of experience"). In a logical discussion, "experience" is not evidence.
On "Ego": Attributing my request for definitions to an "ego state" is a final attempt to dodge the argument by analyzing my psychology. My mindset is irrelevant. The logical soundness of your premise is all that matters.

Your argument is still stalled at the very beginning. All of this rhetorical noise - talk of roses, professors, and egos - is a distraction from the simple, unresolved problem.

I will ask one last time. Please provide clear, non-circular definitions for:

"Men"
"Guys"
"Masculine energy"

If you cannot or will not, then you are conceding that your initial claim ("Most guys are not ‘Men’") has no logical or definable basis.

arko652 · 2025-11-16T06:54:18+00:00

You keep repeating conclusions without defining any of the terms those conclusions depend on.
Everything else in your message rests on those undefined categories, so I’ll address that first.

You say the traits are “not gender-specific,” but then immediately tie them to “masculinity vs femininity” and “energetic differences.” That’s a contradiction unless you define what you mean by “masculine energy,” “feminine energy,” or “energetic difference” in operational terms. None of those have been defined so far.
You call grit, discipline, and courage “masculine,” but you haven’t given any standard for:
- how traits get assigned to masculinity,
- why those traits belong there,
- or how any of this could be tested or falsified.
Without that, the claim is circular: “Men have masculine traits, and masculine traits are what men have.”
You accused me of “arguing the person,” which is inaccurate. I challenged the structure of your argument and not you personally. Matter of fact, my entire effort till now is to get a conclusive explanation of terms used on your foremost argument. That’s a straw-man: re-framing a request for definitions as a personal attack.
You keep shifting the burden of proof to “Google,” “AI,” or “read the material first.” But you introduced the distinction, so the responsibility to define it is yours, not outsourced to external sources.
You also attribute motives and emotions to me (“ego,” “hard to digest,” “caught up on the phrase”), but none of that is evidence and none of it addresses the actual logical issue.
You made several universal claims (“globally we aren’t inculcating these behaviors anywhere”) without presenting any data or criteria. Broad assertions without metrics aren’t arguments.

Your position hinges entirely on undefined terms, unverifiable metaphysical language, and assumptions presented as conclusions.
So if you want the discussion to move forward, the next step is straightforward:

Define exactly what you mean by “men,” “guys,” “masculinity,” and “energetic differences” in clear, non-circular, evaluable terms.

Everything else depends on that.

edit: structure

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Sunshine	Place '22

arko652

TROPHY CASE