greysweater

Omg thank you for making this comment because otherwise I would never have seen that atom951 nuked their account out of embarrassment lmaooo

Good bot, cry harder! Cry harder! 🤣🤣🤣

Lmaooo! I told you cry harder and you actually did 😂😂😂😂

Lol! Sucks to be caught like a hypocrite, huh? You were crying up and down the comments about bots and AI-generated answers, claiming that I'm a "human who uses AI to generate some messages," but it turns out you are the AI generating bot yourself lmaoooo! Maybe I should try a Turing test on you 😂

Everything you were accusing other people of doing is actually just you doing. You should edit out my name in your comment and just put your own!: User atom951 is PROVEN (edit mine) a human that uses AI to generate some messages. Their messages reveal 2 personalities, the human personality is a grade-A narcissist: exhibiting strong defensiveness, moral absolutism, an adversarial tone, and a projection of their standards onto others. Worth noting these are traits shared among a high percentage of netizens.

What loser behavior. Can't defend your beliefs, panic and use AI tools cause you can't bother to research or use your brain, and finally come back cursing. Self-righteous fool, cry a little harder 😂

I don’t like you. I will respond because if anyone reads your post, I want to provide the reasons why "your" reasonings are nonsense. And I also want everyone to know that you are a giant hypocrite since you used AI to generate your answer-- the bullet points are a red flag of AI generated answers so I copied and pasted into an AI checker, and guess what the result was? I mean, you already know since you are the one who queried chat gpt or whatever AI to get this answer lmao. The results say: "We are highly confident this text was AI generated" with a breakdown of "98% AI generated 2% Mixed 0% Human" 0% human! Another AI checker says "Most of Your Text is AI/GPT Generated" and highlights ALL of the numbered reasons as the parts AI generated. Lmao

If you have to use AI to come up with a reason for you, then I'm right and you actually have no strong defense for your beliefs. Just self-righteous energy and ego.

Anyway, here is a HUMAN (me) generated response to your AI copy-paste:

First, people who demonize drugs often ignore that drugs come in many different categories-- they mainly bash illegal drugs. Many don't bash alcohol (a legal drug) or medication (legal drugs), even though both categories can lead to harmful circumstances in many cases. Unless you have never gone to the hospital and been prescribed/taken medication, have never had a single sip of any alcohol, have never bought allergy medication or other over-the-counter medication at regular stores, you cannot state that drugs are inherently immoral without being a hypocrite. There are people who abuse, are addicted to, and have very bad experiences or die even with these over-the-counter drugs that most people are able to use just for the intended purpose at the intended time. So that already tells you the issue is not the drug but the person.

In the U.S., the opioid crisis began with doctors prescribing legal drugs to patients, who then sought these drugs out recreationally outside of legal channels. What does the fact that some drugs are medically legal and recreationally illegal tell you? It's the same drug, but depending on the intent for use, it has a different legal status. That means the drug itself cannot be considered inherently immoral since it has both "good" and "bad" uses (although I think that claiming all personal use of drugs is bad is very oversimplified and incorrect).

Drugs don't corrode society-- society corrodes humans and pushes them to seek out drugs. Now, you have to recognize that not everyone that uses drugs is a full-blown addict incapable of controlling themselves. There are as many different types of drug users as there are drugs. It's like with food-- there are people who literally cannot control themselves around food, and then there are people who have self-discipline and will eat enough without overeating. Does the fact that there are people who can't control their eating habits mean food is bad? No, it means something is going on with those people that has inhibited them from making moderate decisions, and the focus should be on what that thing is rather than just the food. It's the same with drugs.

Okay, so now that we have these basic two points set up which already prove that drugs cannot be considered inherently immoral, I will address your AI-generated defense point by point:

0. You know what else has a criminal food chain? Most products! All these cheap goods that are online are fueled by slave and child labor. Drugs are not a special outlier-- you should research how chocolate trade literally depends on child labor even though it generates billions in profit.

Now, this is not me saying that "oh everything involves child or other exploited labor so it's okay." Not at all, all these exploitations are messed up and need to be stopped. This is just me pointing out that it is not the PRODUCT that is the issue, but HUMAN BEINGS. A person will exploit you over chocolate the same as they will exploit you over drugs-- they're in it to make money, that's it. So, you have to address the human beings to prevent the exploitation. The drugs aren't doing the exploiting.

1. Economic Losses and Market Distortion
How does this point even make sense? If the product is legal, then legitimate businesses and industries would not carry the product, would they? If criminals use a fake business to launder profits, then that fake business is not actually a business providing legitimate services, are they? So, people aren't going to the fake business and paying for fake services.

Now, I don't know enough to comment on the diversion of controlled substances, but I'm pretty sure that certain drugs that appear both in medical and recreational markets are being manufactured by different sources. The highest grade is medical grade, but often drugs on the recreational market will be developed by a chemist in that market because legal drug production is so regulated (at least in certain countries). I would be curious to know how much overlap there really is in production for the two markets.

2. Public Health Risks
Yes, illicit use of drugs can contribute to the public health crisis. But how is that any different from junk foods that are researched and proven to have NO nutritional benefits and are actually straight up harmful to our bodies? If you hate drugs because they have the *chance* of being harmful depending on how people use it, does that mean you also do not consume and are anti- all soda and all junk food because they *definitely* harm human bodies? Drugs are not 100% harmful, so they cannot be considered 100% bad or immoral.

Under this point the AI used propofol as an example of a drug intended for controlled medical use that also appears in the recreational market. As I said earlier, if a drug can have both "good" and "bad" uses, how does that make the drug immoral? Doesn't that mean the drug is okay in moderation and what's actually bad is if the human using it goes overboard? Doesn't that mean you should be pro-teaching people to be careful with their drug use rather than completely anti-drug? It just doesn't make sense. Either the drugs are immoral in every case or you have to admit that they are not inherently immoral and it is the context that matters. And once you admit it is the context that matters, then you've agreed with my point that drugs are not inherently immoral.

3. Erosion of Regulatory Trust
What does this have to do with whether drugs are good or bad? Make all drugs legal and you won't have this issue, right?

4. Facilitation of Other Criminal Activities
Again, what?? The drugs themselves are not the issue the AI is grappling with. Instead, it is still grappling with humans doing bad things using drugs. Do you know what Nestle is up to? Do you know what the Chiquita Banana company is up to? These legal entities have used the proceeds from their legal operations to literally murder and exploit people. Does that mean the cacao nut (used to make chocolate) and bananas are inherently bad? No!

You need to adjust whatever prompt you gave the AI because it fails to actually consider drugs themselves and instead considers the actions humans take around drugs. In theory, if all drugs were legalized it would alleviate half of these bullet points.

5. Social Instability and Increased Crime
Okay, legalize drugs so the communities can make legal money then. Right now, in the U.S., there are several states where weed is legalized. You know what's happening in those states? Legitimate companies are growing and selling weed. And you know what else? If they sell bad or harmful products, people can actually take these legal entities to court. So, because the drug was legalized, now people have a legitimate source to go to that is consistently safer (due to being regulated) than the illegal sources before. So actually, just legalizing drugs would help with social stability (people have safe access to regulated drugs) and decrease crime (since people won't be thrown into jail for using drugs or selling them).

6. Challenges for Law Enforcement and Policy Makers
Again, your AI is really bad at making arguments. This doesn't say anything about whether drugs are inherently bad or not. Legalize the drug and this point is decreased.

Now to the AI’s points about drug users:

1. Healthcare Costs
This is a bizarre point. You do realize that drugs are used in healthcare, right? Like, if you have a fever and take Ibuprofen, you are using a drug. In the U.S., if you have certain levels of anxiety, doctors can and do prescribe medical marijuana even in states where recreational usage is illegal. Without drugs, most of healthcare does not exist at all. So, again, the AI is talking about the habits of certain drug users rather than drugs themselves. Drugs are not inherently bad. Like anything else, it is abusing them to the extreme that is bad.

2. Public Health Risks
Then put resources into spreading knowledge of safe drug use habits and tools.

3. Crime and Law Enforcement:
Key word being *may*.

4. Violent Crimes
I agree with this, but not all drugs do and not all people experience the same effects. So it is still too variable and subjective to make a blanket statement like drugs are immoral.

5. Economic Impact:
But this is not unique to drugs? People get addicted to games, or they get depressed, or a million other things that can lead to “productivity loss.” Have you watched My 600lb Life? The people on there are all out of work etc. but everyone tends to see that the issue is the person and their inability to control their eating rather than the actual food. Same here.

There’s nothing wrong with social welfare programs. If the richest in our societies were taxed fairly, we would all be living large with very affordable housing, universal base income, etc. It’s not good to look down on social welfare programs—they are meant to help people in all kinds of situations and act as a safety net for all of us.

6. Family and Social Relationships:
Again, this is individual. Not everyone who uses drugs has these issues. Which means the problem is less with the drug and somewhere with the specific human using the drug.

7. Community Resources
These are just repeating what was earlier. And yes, drugs can have negative psychological impact, but they can also have positive psychological impact. And I definitely agree that students should not have access to certain kinds of drugs because certain drugs negatively impact them while they are still in the growing phase, but that still does not mean drugs themselves are inherently bad.

These AI points lack focus and is much more concerned about the effect of drugs being criminalized (If eating cheese became illegal, a lot of people would be thrown into jail for eating or possessing cheese. Then the AI would say the prevalence of cheese-eating makes things difficult on law enforcement because they have to allocate more resources to combat cheese-eating. Like, the actual point is that maybe cheese-eating should not be illegal??) than the morality or immorality of the actual drugs themselves.

Haha, they just copy pasted an AI generated response. You can copy paste it into an AI checker and it will tell you the results. it looks and is formatted so AI that I don't know how atom951 thought no one would notice. Isn't it so hypocritical of them to claim bots and AI answers then turn around and generate an AI answer? Made me laugh out loud lmao

I'm too tired tonight to address why their AI response is lacking (will do later because people demonizing drugs is fully ridiculous and causes harm), but just wanted to give you a heads up on the response being AI generated

Deflecting and pretending you think I'm a bot yet again! Doing this doesn't change the fact that you have no good defense for your stance on drugs, just your self-righteousness.

Also, I think you must not know what deflect means, so here's the definition along with an example perfectly fitting what you're doing:

Deflect: to turn (something) aside especially from a straight course or fixed direction.
Example : deflect a question

You can find this definition on Meriam Webster, along with the example. You consistently *deflect* the question I asked you and instead cling to an unimportant point with the hopes that I'll get distracted by the unimportant point and turn away from you being unable to defend your perspective on drugs.

People like you who refuse to analyze your own way of thinking and be open to being wrong are a huge problem in this world. Just want to forcefully put your subjective beliefs on everyone else. And I say this as someone who is against drugs-- I don't do any drugs (not even alcohol or any of the legalized ones) and prefer not to be around people who do. Yet I can recognize that my personal stance on drugs should not dictate other peoples' lives. Grow up and stop attacking people online if you can't handle having your beliefs questioned

As I said before, I'm not a fan of Kim Soo Hyun. I looked at his kisskh and it clearly shows he was in Crash Landing on You. I don't remember his appearance in the show, but it says he was in there. So yes, he appeared in a drama that Son Ye Jin was in.

How about stop deflecting on this irrelevant and frankly unimportant point (especially since he DID appear in CLoY, so I don't understand why you are acting like I lied) and just admit that you can't back up your beliefs?

I'll respond as soon as you answer my question about what makes drugs inherently bad

No, you stopped replying because you don't have a strong defense. And actually yes, you do need to explain why my opinion on it is wrong. That's the whole point. You can't just claim something with no reasoning and pressure others to believe it too. You couldn't defend your viewpoint and ran away

I doubt there's any bots on here besides the scam posts you'll see sometimes (usually with a hyperlink to an external site-- never click!); @atom951 just has a bruised ego because they couldn't come up with a response to why other people doing drugs would be considered morally wrong.

Lol, because I made reasonable points that you couldn't come up with strong defenses to? I've been very polite in my conversation with you and have held back my tongue on what I'd really like to say. It's not my problem if you don't want to look beyond your own ego and realize that other people don't need to live their lives under your personal beliefs.

You still deflect from the important question with something unimportant. I will accept your deflection as you not having a strong defense, therefore your stance on drugs is primarily ego and not morals based.

You should consider exercising critical review of your own thoughts. Someone who refuses to analyze their own beliefs open-mindedly will cause more harm than good. Anyway, I'll exit the conversation here since you keep deflecting. Bye

And you are still deflecting. People kill themselves with cars and other things too, not a good argument. Instead of deflecting, reflect. It sucks that you refuse to analyze your own views with any form of objectivity/open-mind that you may be wrong

No, you are deflecting because you don't have a good answer to my question (copied below). Instead of deflecting, reflect on your beliefs and think. If you can come up with a strong defense, share it. If you cannot, then that is a sign that your beliefs are flimsy and have more to do with your ego than morality.

The question you are deflecting from: "Can you come up with a solid reason-- besides religion (subjective)-- that makes drugs inherently bad? And don't say health either, unless you are someone who never eats any snacks or drinks any sodas/alcohol (because those things are poison yet completely legal, even with solid research showing they have no nutritional benefits and actually harm human health).

edit: Also, you know there are sex abusers who don't use drugs, right? You only have to look at the Catholic Church to recognize that. There are all kinds of people who are abusers, and the thing that is common to all of them is that they abuse other people. That's it."

I don't do drugs and am generally against drug usage, but I'm not going to put my personal values on other people when it doesn't hurt me. The world would be a lot better if people stopped forcing certain purely personal values and beliefs onto others (and by purely personal I mean beliefs that do not harm you if another person chooses to believe or act differently).

Using drugs does not immediately mean you hurt other people. It's not the best argument you're making because I could easily say people who drive cars hurt other people, should cars be illegal for everyone? No, only people who abuse their privilege and hurt others with cars have to face negative consequences. There are many people who use drugs and don't harm others (and, by the way, there are also medical drugs prescribed by doctors which have similar effects to "illegal" drugs).

Can you come up with a solid reason-- besides religion (subjective)-- that makes drugs inherently bad? And don't say health either, unless you are someone who never eats any snacks or drinks any sodas/alcohol (because those things are poison yet completely legal, even with solid research showing they have no nutritional benefits and actually harm human health).

edit: Also, you know there are sex abusers who don't use drugs, right? You only have to look at the Catholic Church to recognize that. There are all kinds of people who are abusers, and the thing that is common to all of them is that they abuse other people. That's it.

What's the line from Tangerines?

"We also have to ask ourselves whether we can continue to support the industry in this way if there are no consequences..." This was the final straw for me. I was never a fan of Kim Soo Hyun particularly, but I did watch some of his dramas because he frequently appears with actresses I'm a fan of (Kim Ji Won, Son Ye Jin, now Jo Bo Ah which I won't be watching).

I've been wondering for the past year if watching these dramas is complicity in the abuse that's going on behind the screen. I already had to stop listening to Kpop because I felt very frustrated about how they mistreated and exploited idols (especially the girl groups I was a fan of). Now every time I watch dramas I'm wondering if the actor is a vile abuser or if someone on screen was abused. I can't do it anymore. Even "quiet" actors like this are actually busy causing harm.

I'm quitting watching entertainment. I just can't do it anymore. Feels gross knowing what these people might actually be up to and never get long lasting consequences. Even rapists worm their way back into the industry while people who have drug charges and harm no one face the harshest consequences. So backwards, so upside down.

People who need the law to tell them what's right and wrong are insane. If there was no law against murder they would argue that it's okay to kill other people if their fave did it smh

For real! That he's a creep and a groomer is the only fact that doesn't change in every version of this story