That’s not true. Lots of drugs can kill you. Don’t know if they all count as ‘stoned’ though
Where can I? Asking for a friend
Just walk around downtown asking for drugs. If you dont find any and the drugs don’t kill you, someone probably will eventually.
Stalin and Mao would like to have a chat with your if you think this is true.
Tanked to dead, sent to concentration camps without due process… Sure.
But not stoned!
Stalin was an atheist and he was responsible for killing at least 6 million people.
Killing Nazis is good
Not sure how to break this to you, but he killed far more of his own people than Nazis.
I’m not gonna stand here and defend a bad man, but I still feel like there is important nuance that is being left out, when you’re comparing him to the likes of Hitler. I feel like they’re different levels of bad.
At how many million deaths would you draw the line between a bad man and a good man?
You didn’t even try to read
Go homeTry not defending Stalin?
The first 10 words of my reply were
I’m not gonna stand here and defend a bad man
For fuck sake am I on Reddit? Have I taken crazy pills?
I didn’t say he was good, I said Hitler was a different level of evil. Holy fuck we’re reaching toilet water levels of reading comprehension here.
You’re a new account, just go back to reddit with that shit
Not directly. The conman Lysenko, originator of Lysenkoism was. Stalin didn’t aim intentionally to create mass starvation in Soviet Russia. Nor did Mao in Chin, these were issues of understanding science which we tale for granted today but weren’t well understood at the time.
Wikipedia:
Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the archival revelations, some historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin’s regime were 20 million or higher.[5][6][7] After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives was declassified and researchers were allowed to study it. This contained official records of 799,455 executions (1921–1953),[8][9][10][11][12] around 1.5 to 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag,[13][14][15] some 390,000[16] deaths during the dekulakization forced resettlement, and up to 400,000 deaths of persons deported during the 1940s,[17] with a total of about 3.3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.[18] According to historian Stephen Wheatcroft, approximately 1 million of these deaths were “purposive” while the rest happened through neglect and irresponsibility.[2] The deaths of at least 5.5 to 6.5 million[19] persons in the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 are sometimes included with the victims of the Stalin era.[2][20]
So we’re just going to ignore the ~800k executions and the ~1.5M gulag deaths?
Where’s it say to do that?
Why would correcting one point of fact mean ignoring another? That’s not how truth works.
Two statements can both be true at the same time.
You were making a case that Stalin wasn’t responsible for the holodomor, but you ignored the fact that even without that, he’s still directly responsible for at least 2 million deaths.
I never said he wasn’t. That number in fact comes from the text I posted. However, he wasn’t “responsible” for causing Holodomor (he directed it once it had already been caused). It’s clear you still don’t know what Lysenkoism is.
He was responsible for directing the hunger politically, not for seeking to, or being the cause of the famine.
I’ll simplify it:
If one person turns a tap on and another directs the water, who is responsible for the fact the tap is on?
I’m saying Lysenko and Lysenkoism (which has little to do with socialist and communist doctrine or schools of thought) is the man who turned the tap on. Stalin, being an authoritarian - chose to direct the water to what suited him politically. But the famine at that point was already happening. You can’t just turn an agricultural disaster off once it sets in.
Okay, but even if you remove the ~6 million deaths from the holodomor, he still remains responsible for the ~800k executions and ~1.5 M gulag deaths. I’m not sure what’s so difficult to understand about that.
You seem to think I denied those numbers rather than being the person who pasted them to you.
I believe the lesson here is that marijuana just isn’t toxic enough to kill anyone.
Is marijuana atheist? I mean, it has Mary in the name. Also, Rastafarians consider it a holy plant and use it for sacramental purposes.
Yeah, but not with stones 🪨
Important distinction
I feel like this is one of those things where, even though there is a likelihood that you are right, you don’t actually know that you are correct.
People are weird.
People are occasionally evil, especially towards weird people.
There’s an entire possibility that atheists have stoned somebody to death, and since you’re the one making the claim, I feel like you should be the one to scour every single instance of death in all of human history to verify your claim.
Nah we just don’t write fun stories about it when it happens.
A fact check of this claim would be interesting.
I don’t know about that dude, I’ve been given some pretty strong shit before. Definitely felt like I was dying.
Yeah they have, I did it last week ffs.
But it is shit, which is kind of the point. Shitposts are usually poor-quality, provocative, or off-topic.
Not for lack of wanting to… Hooray for impulse control.
Because they use other weapons?
…yet.
Who’s to says pre-historic humans never did?
Just needs a slight tweak to be a little less historically inaccurate: Nobody has ever been “hunted for sport” by a Zoroastrian.
Nah Persia got wild sometimes.
The guys you want are the Jains. They’re supposedly the origin of the pacifist and global brotherhood messaging in Christianity, which is clearly at odds with just about everything else in the history of the religion.
Oh, you believe that Jesus went to India when he was young? Jainism is so far removed, what mental gymnastics leads you to this conclusion?
No, I think the Middle East had cultural contact with India and this has always been the case, including the interplay of religious beliefs being a historical fact, you dumbass.
I mean christianity has a lot of obvious influence from zoroastrianism which makes sense geographically and it adopted some motives. But sure, Jainism is the only peaceful religion ever so it has to come from there. Or are there other commonalities as you would expect when you assume contact?
I dunno. There have been some pretty annoying people throughout history. Might be more accurate to say “for not being an atheist.”
Cultural Revolution…
