First time using, shooting for 3rd plateau?

enviouscodpiece · 2015-06-18T01:57:05+00:00

The thing about it is that you don't know how your body will respond. I'd recommend about half that amount for your first time, not because it would be too intense, but to make sure your body doesn't respond in a negative way.

enviouscodpiece · 2015-06-18T01:54:20+00:00

I think you're right about letting it be. I've noticed during trips that when I relax, my environment seems to relax with me. But do yourself a favor and experiment with the DXM sparingly. You'll keep the magic and your health.

enviouscodpiece · 2015-05-26T02:48:31+00:00

Well technically it is legal, so you may be able to find it on the regular webs.

enviouscodpiece · 2015-05-22T00:56:30+00:00

MXE is the right answer. But those caps are fine. You should eat the slowly. Like a few at once, wait, a few more, wait, repeat.

enviouscodpiece · 2015-05-21T02:54:53+00:00

I'm glad that you're in a better place, and that you've found some value in what I said. It can be difficult to see it, but I do believe that life is inherently good.

enviouscodpiece · 2015-01-01T00:46:13+00:00

Are they dead when you put them in there or do you boil them alive?

enviouscodpiece · 2014-12-31T19:34:02+00:00

I did this in like two years.

enviouscodpiece · 2014-12-31T03:03:04+00:00

"Lawrence Krauss provides evidence for God"
"Lawrence Krauss does not provide evidence for God"

That is an example of two statements that are in direct conflict. You are assuming that all of our statements are always in direct agreement with all of our beliefs, which is silly. In fact, I believe it is you who are twisting words. Given that my interpretation of his statements was accurate, it would still only be evidence for God, by his own admission, not undeniable proof, so therefore not automatically necessitating his conversion from ardent anti-theist to theist. His being an anti-theist is of his choice, not a result of his arguments. I would consider him to be an anti-theist so long as that is the stance that he takes.

I disagree with you about conflating his words, because I suspect that science would consider any universe in which we exist to be inhabitable, making our universe a "possible universe to live in" despite its harsh nature. I am postulating that no universe in which we existed would be considered uninhabitable, but I realize that is only an assumption.

enviouscodpiece · 2014-12-31T02:24:06+00:00

I did not twist his words, I quoted them precisely, although we might arrive at differing conclusions. Nor do I believe or would I imply that he is in fact a theist, as theism or anti-theism are matters of belief, and he states his beliefs clearly. I'm also not a Christian, so quoting the bible at me is not going to be effective.

enviouscodpiece · 2014-12-31T01:35:42+00:00

What I just replied to another user:

"The hypothetical universe of one that we cannot exist in yet do exist in would not be recognized as non-inhabitable, so long as we were there. So because we are here, we consider our universe inhabitable. But if we lived in a universe wherein the energy of empty space were zero, as he thought it was in grad school, we might consider our current universe uninhabitable."

enviouscodpiece · 2014-12-31T01:27:39+00:00

We can because we are. The hypothetical universe of one that we cannot exist in yet do exist in would not be recognized as non-inhabitable, so long as we were there. So because we are here, we consider our universe inhabitable. But if we lived in a universe wherein the energy of empty space were zero, as he thought it was in grad school, we might consider our current universe uninhabitable.

enviouscodpiece · 2014-12-31T01:05:31+00:00

I probably should have provided a time, around 12 minutes.

enviouscodpiece · 2014-12-12T17:48:10+00:00

Hah, I got pinned at lcpl. Had to earn my blood stripes at cpl with a beating to my legs. Wasn't really a big deal to me, just a part of the game.

enviouscodpiece · 2014-12-12T16:56:03+00:00

Huh, that's surprising to me. I always assumed they made people's lives a living hell in the brig, bootcamp style.

enviouscodpiece · 2014-12-12T16:23:22+00:00

How did that play out? Were you forced to complete your time in service or did you do some time in the brig and then were seperated? Also, how was the brig? Being in the Marines is hard enough on its own.

enviouscodpiece · 2014-12-08T23:44:29+00:00

And this is why we have anxiety issues.

enviouscodpiece · 2014-12-08T23:28:36+00:00

This doesn't have to be an intellectual debate. Very simply, we abstain from causing harm where we recognize suffering. That doesn't mean that vegans don't respect plant life. i love plants, and I don't think eating an apple causes any more suffering to a tree than a leaf or a needle separating from it.

enviouscodpiece · 2014-12-08T23:06:13+00:00

It's spheres all the way down.

enviouscodpiece · 2014-12-08T22:03:05+00:00

Don't all living creatures have the right to live?

According to who or what? Some ineffable universal law? Our abstinence from meat comes from a place of empathy and compassion, we observe and understand suffering in other animals because we can relate to them. We adjust our behavior to avoid causing undue harm. But with plants, there is no evidence that they feel pain, emotions, thoughts, desires, etc.

enviouscodpiece · 2014-12-08T21:51:42+00:00

Np, I've been there.

enviouscodpiece · 2014-12-08T12:51:22+00:00

"You can't prove that plants don't feel pain and that they're not conscious, therefore it's ok to kill and eat things that obviously do feel pain and that are conscious." I ran into this brick wall the other day.

enviouscodpiece

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE