I'm a psychopathic drug dealer

[EquALLity]

I object to the term "drug dealer". I prefer "private entrepreneur of street-side pharmaceuticals. "

To Brimstone's point about taking your post seriously, it was in the serious section, and speaking from experience, it is quite easy for someone who is an otherwise law-abiding and moral person to get caught up in the "game".

Let's say you're an individual who smokes a lot of marijuana. You buy in bulk because you always want to have some ready. Your friends know you always have pot, so when the dealers are out, they ask you for a joint or two. Trying to be nice, you let them buy a little bit here and there, only selling it because you can't afford to give it away and maintain your daily habit. One day the dealer offers to sell you a large supply for hardly more than you are paying for your normal weekly allowance. Suddenly, you have all this pot, and a bunch of friends who want to buy it, and you do the math in your head and realize you can sell half, make all your money back, and still have pot to smoke! Suddenly, you are the dealer..

I'm a big fan of personal choice, and even though I personally no longer do drugs, I believe people have the right to make bad decisions, as long as they are not harming anyone else. I know the argument could be made that supplying someone with drugs harms them, but as long as they are an adult and know the risks involved, they have the right to harm themselves. (Pot, cocaine, or cheeseburgers)

Brimstone's advice was helpful to anyone actually dealing with this plausible conundrum, so don't bust his balls for believing it was possible and trying to help. I also thought it was a real post. I applaud your sarcasm sir, but you must realize not everyone has the distorted sense of humor or love of satire that some of us do.

I think this has become about PsYcHo.

If you were a drug-dealer(private entrepreneur of street-side pharmaceuticals?), and you're not anymore, that's great.

Though it is harmful to be a drug-dealer, not just because of harm to the people you're selling to, but because of the harm done to people through drug cartels and the harm involved with drug-dealer violence.

[PsYcHo]

If you were a drug-dealer(private entrepreneur of street-side pharmaceuticals?), and you're not anymore, that's great.

Though it is harmful to be a drug-dealer, not just because of harm to the people you're selling to, but because of the harm done to people through drug cartels and the harm involved with drug-dealer violence.

I merely proposed a theoretical example, I didn't admit to committing any actual crime...

Interesting note, drugs are not the only products that have caused violence for profit. Look into bananas, chocolate, and diamonds, just to name a few.

I could have been more concise, but my point was that Red shouldn't be offended that Brimstone took him seriously. Despite what you see on television, not all drug dealers are heartless criminals trying to make money off the suffering of others. Sometimes they're just normal people who fall into the trade by accident. His scenario, while untrue, is entirely plausible.

[EquALLity]

I merely proposed a theoretical example, I didn't admit to committing any actual crime...

Of course, a 'theoretical example'.

Notice how he says he didn't admit to committing a crime, not that he didn't commit a crime.
I don't think the police are going to come after you (decades?) after you dealt drugs from a post on an online forum, if that's what you're worried about.

Interesting note, drugs are not the only products that have caused violence for profit. Look into bananas, chocolate, and diamonds, just to name a few.

Yeah, definitely avoid diamonds.

I'm not sure about the other stuff, but just because those products cause violence doesn't mean drug-dealing violence is ok. Two wrong don't make a right.

Despite what you see on television, not all drug dealers are heartless criminals trying to make money off the suffering of others. Sometimes they're just normal people who fall into the trade by accident.

Of course.

[brimstoneSalad]

Interesting note, drugs are not the only products that have caused violence for profit. Look into bananas, chocolate, and diamonds, just to name a few.

Yeah, definitely avoid diamonds.

I'm not sure about the other stuff, but just because those products cause violence doesn't mean drug-dealing violence is ok. Two wrong don't make a right.

Yes, diamonds; this is because of the value density and liquidity. They're a favorite of smugglers and for moving huge amounts of money covertly in the black market and for terrorism. When we look at those harms, we're talking about how many dollars per gram.
Something like bananas or chocolate are less capable of generating the level of concentrated violence associated with the diamond trade (or drugs), because they just aren't convenient mediums of exchange on the black market; the low price per gram means you can't practically use them to fuel terrorism or an armed revolution.

And when it comes to production, we have to weigh the benefit of providing jobs against the harm. As that harm becomes less concentrated, that positive quality of funneling money into poorer countries and providing employment outweighs the harm to those people. If only drugs were legal, the price in trade would crash to the production costs, and the positive benefits of their growing to the poor might outweigh the negative to the consumers -- it would still be better if they grew something else though.

Anyway, the point is the value density; as something gets both very expensive and easy to move around, illicit uses open up to add more harm. I don't agree that there's a net harm from chocolate and bananas because of the low density. Saffron and White Truffles, maybe; people are probably killed over those, and they may be capable of fueling terrorism and smuggling wealth. A quick Google search suggests this is true for both.

[brimstoneSalad]

You sound like this guy:

https://youtu.be/az6wof3iyIw?t=35

So shocked that people actually believe what you say.
How can you come here with indignation that we actually took you at your word? It's insulting.

How exactly is it useful to question the accounts people give when they're asking for help?

Because I wasn't actually asking for help?

Why should I believe you?
Hint: I should not.

I'm getting the feeling you're trying to piss me off.
If I honestly wanted help, I don't think I'd turn the tables like this.

You clearly didn't read my entire post. Down to the very end. Go back and read my first post in this thread.

You said one thing, now you said another. It is in no way implausible that your cousin deals drugs and that you see him often. I have no way to know otherwise. You don't imagine I'm familiar with your family tree and relations, do you?

What? Please elaborate, because I'm not sure as to what I said.

"I'm a drug dealer and my cousin is my supplier, please help me."
"Haha, joke's on you dumb ass, my cousin doesn't deal drugs and I haven't even seen him in years -- that proves it!"

No, no it doesn't prove it. You just claim that's true. You can't just say one thing (supposedly lying), then say the opposite thing and expect us to believe it. I don't have any way of confirming this information.

You might as well have said:

"I don't even have a cousin"
or
"My cousin is only two years old, how could he sell me drugs?"

Both of those would be more credible than what you actually said, but ultimately not more credible than your original claim. It's just an assertion without evidence.

What you actually said was even worse. It was the worst lie you could have told, because it even contained a contradiction in itself.

Which am I to believe?

A: Your cousin is a drug dealer
or
B: You haven't seen your cousin in years, but despite this you magically know he's not a drug dealer

Obviously A is more credible, B is self contradictory. The best assumption is that A is true and B is the lie.
Like I said, you can't convince me otherwise. There are too many holes in your story, and all you have are assertions.
Can you link to a peer reviewed study that shows that you aren't a drug dealer? No. So stop making assertions. Nobody believes you.

Take my advice or don't. But don't insult me.
I believed your the first time, I will not do so again.

I probably meant something more along the lines of "lying about lying". But you probably won't believe that.

Somebody's fine with lying, but draws the line at lying about lying? Really?

Of course I don't believe that. Maybe you're fine with lying about lying, but you actually draw the line at lying about lying about lying. Or maybe you're OK with that too, and draw the line at lying about lying about lying about lying.
Infinite regress.

The only thing you can do is apologize and ask us to believe you this time; but you can not demand it. And continuing to insult us doesn't help your case.

That's the point; it makes no sense.

Plenty of things vegans do make no sense. Humans are human.

I'm just saying the correct quote.

Next time I'll call you a lady so I can preserve the iambic pentameter for you.

Let's just say my parents are in very high positions and work jobs that require skills that not many people have, and my grandfather's restaurant has very good reviews on Yelp.

Prove it. These are empty claims.

I don't claim to know what your motives are.

Okay, so?

I'm not required to know your motivations in order to believe what you said originally. I don't know your motivations for what you're saying now either.

[Red]

How can you come here with indignation that we actually took you at your word? It's insulting.

I just wasn't this expecting to happen, I'm sorry, jeez.

Why should I believe you?
Hint: I should not.

Well, why not?

You clearly didn't read my entire post. Down to the very end. Go back and read my first post in this thread.

I did though.

"I'm a drug dealer and my cousin is my supplier, please help me."
"Haha, joke's on you dumb ass, my cousin doesn't deal drugs and I haven't even seen him in years -- that proves it!"

No, no it doesn't prove it. You just claim that's true. You can't just say one thing (supposedly lying), then say the opposite thing and expect us to believe it. I don't have any way of confirming this information.

Then how can you confirm any of the information?

You might as well have said:

"I don't even have a cousin"
or
"My cousin is only two years old, how could he sell me drugs?"

Both of those would be more credible than what you actually said, but ultimately not more credible than your original claim. It's just an assertion without evidence.

What you actually said was even worse. It was the worst lie you could have told, because it even contained a contradiction in itself.

Which am I to believe?

A: Your cousin is a drug dealer
or
B: You haven't seen your cousin in years, but despite this you magically know he's not a drug dealer

So you're saying that I never contacted my cousin in the past few years? I just haven't seen him in person in the past 4 years. We talk sometimes, and we talk about a lot of things. I called him a few hours ago, and he claimed he never was affiliated with drugs. Should I believe him?

Obviously A is more credible, B is self contradictory. The best assumption is that A is true and B is the lie.
Like I said, you can't convince me otherwise. There are too many holes in your story, and all you have are assertions.
Can you link to a peer reviewed study that shows that you aren't a drug dealer? No. So stop making assertions. Nobody believes you.

Really? Nobody? Ok.

Somebody's fine with lying, but draws the line at lying about lying? Really?

Of course I don't believe that. Maybe you're fine with lying about lying, but you actually draw the line at lying about lying about lying. Or maybe you're OK with that too, and draw the line at lying about lying about lying about lying.
Infinite regress.

Okay you're right, I fucked that up.

Plenty of things vegans do make no sense. Humans are human.

well

Next time I'll call you a lady so I can preserve the iambic pentameter for you.

If you plan on quoting Shakespeare, I don't mind.

Prove it. These are empty claims.

Ok, I'll try without giving away too much information about my parents occupations. I would tell you their jobs, but I just don't feel safe telling people on the internet that.
1. My dad has a Vice-President title somewhere in his job (not telling which)
2. My mom has been working at this particular place for over 15 years and is the head of her rank.
3. I would show you the Yelp! page, but it reveals a lot of my location. I censored as much as possible, but I pretty much censored the whole thing. Why do I care you wouldn't believe me anyways.

The only thing you can do is apologize and ask us to believe you this time; but you can not demand it. And continuing to insult us doesn't help your case.

Okay, you're right.

Guys, I lied to you about selling drugs. I decided to poke fun at EquALLity, and I probably should not have escalated it to this degree, so to speak. It was a joke from the start, and I shouldn't have expected everyone to know that.I shouldn't have been so aggressive, since, now thinking about it, kinda hurts my credibility. I'm sorry fr any potential insulting I may have done. Anyways, you may still not believe me after this, which is understandable to a degree. So I'm sorry to everyone I conned into believing me.