Buck Edwards

I don't think most mass shooters had a drinking problem. I think an inverse correlation exists between guns and alcohol. People who get drunk do get violent but only short term resulting into club brawl fights. In fact drinking causes much less violence long term since it inhibits executive functions and most people who drink are scarcely able to handle themselves let alone carry out a shooting that needs measurable levels of alertness. With drinking, there can be a massive increase in drunk driving fatalities and domestic violence but not mass shootings. Drinking inhibits aggression. Most regular drinkers aren't known to commit serious crimes because they lack coordination and agility. Regarding the glorification of guns, this is a historical thing and every country has a history that has uniquely shaped itself into existence. There is one crucial difference. Slave trade was much more common and widespread in the US than in Australia or Europe. There's a distinct slave history in the US. This says that the general culture was more hostile than other places. The toxic family culture in part due to feminism, erosion of church values, these values are still intact in other countries. If you replace a church with a club, things are going to be a bit shady.

Europe and US are very different. Europe is a conglomerate of different countries and cultures. Europe is more homogeneous racially. Most people in Europe don't have guns. There's a fallout of the wild west culture in the US that has always lingered around. We don't see glorification of guns in Europe. If you take a single country from Europe, it's nowhere close to US in size. Canada, Europe and Australia don't have toxic social family culture, they are way more conservative, with a relatively smaller distribution of guns. Historically America has always been glorifying guns. Mental health issues generally have a root in family, social structure, drug usage and food. All these have been perversely exploited by different industries for profit. For example, American food is known for junk, toxic chemical buildup, drugs are distributed irrationally. The rate of drug consumption itself is extremely high, you can look into opiate and cocaine and the recent fentanyl crisis. Homelessness is a big issue. Most Mass shooters come from low income groups. Crime is normalized to some extent. When you grow up in environments of crime, violence, drugs, and toxic food, it's easy to see how it all creates a volatile mix.

@Brandon Nankivell Aya is the divine goddess.

Canada is uniquely advantaged in that it does not have a mental health crisis on the same level as the US. Canada has a much smaller population and not an extreme political racial social divide. Also I don't think guns are ubiquitous in Canada. US has a systemic gun problem. Top it up with mental health issues, lack of social support and abuse of drugs, you'll get a gun crisis. Grassroots solution - fix mental health, fix family system. Oh Yea I forgot that. Canada does not have an extremely high divorce rate with family dysfunction whereas family values in the US are in the dumpster. Family systems in Canada are conservative, at least in comparison to the US. So the grassroots solution - fix mental health, fix family system, better security and better regulation on safety checks, protocols, licenses are given without proper background verification, that won't work. Stringent verification.

We need a mental health check. Until that is left unresolved, we'll keep suffering the same fate. There's a mental health epidemic.

Commit to a girl because you genuinely want to be her boyfriend and not just wanting to get laid. There's a special honor in being a boyfriend. Regarding friendzone, she will friendzone you if you aren't attractive enough. Accept it. If you want things to change, provide her more value.

54 (fear) + 60 (avoidance) = 114 It's not that I didn't know.

To never take yourself too seriously.

The best ever.

This is getting a bit annoying. I'm having a neutral position on this matter until stronger credible proof is shown. You should seriously check your bias. It's pissing me off.

@Girzo when it came to the actual nitty gritty, you backed off. Haha. Smart. My experiment design is cool. You simply don't have the means to do it. Now you say "the mushrooms are probably bunk," it's changed to probably after I challenged you hardcore. See this is the problem with online conspiracy theories, there isn't serious credibility to such claims. You can't call someone/something an outright scam if you can't prove it outright. Not so long ago you accused me of being a church marketer. I'm completely chill. I'm only saying that you have nothing to objectively prove your claims. It's farcical. I'm not wanting to be salty with you. I respect your opinion so far, yet I simply wish to keep the discussion good faith and as objective as possible.

@Girzo I only care about placing my belief into something either based on experience (which I believe is a bit mushy indeed) or based on verifiable credible proof. In your case, make yourself believable. I would expect this from you - a triple test. I need you to show me 3 samples. First sample should be sugar. Second sample should be actual psilomethoxin. Third sample should be the luxury mushroom from the church. Now you need to have something similar to a litmus test. It should be a clear cut indicator of the absence or presence of psilomethoxin. If the second sample gives the green signal and the other two samples don't, I will believe everything you say. Do you have such a report with you? If you can't produce what I demanded, I won't believe you. Till then no talk.

In a way, you're right, the church should ideally do so. Yet they don't. But it shouldn't be hard for you to do it if you care too much about the truth. It would be awesome if you actually proved it doesn't contain psilomethoxin instead of doing armchair speculation. In this sense you're no different than the church. It's he said she said with your rhetoric. If they say (since I didn't check their website and I don't bother to) it contains psilomethoxin and you say it doesn't, it really points to nothing other than jibber jabber. So the burden of proof lies on both parties - here it's you and the church. Why should I take your word for it when you don't even have a sample and a test report in your hand? If this was played out in court and I were the judge, you be asked to produce proof as plaintiff. There is a crucial problem here. Ideally in a clinical trial setting this is possible. You're holding vials with labels. If I remove those labels, your experiment is fucked up. Try to think of non scientific everyday settings. If someone is experiencing psilomethoxin when they are dosed with psilocybin, they don't know that it's normal mushroom. Neither do others around them. We're not always carrying testing kits around. So you can test a placebo in ideal conditions, that is a lab. But you can't test a placebo in everyday normal human living conditions because you don't know what something contains. If you care about the truth, like technicals and all the jazz, then you should do rigorous tests with detailed laboratory reports and much more like samples with actual psilomethoxin and how it shows up in tests. All you're doing is speculating and that's why what you say cannot be taken too seriously as it lacks substance. It's banter.

@Benton I can modify your body and treat it with something or give you something that resists caffeine just before you sip the coffee and then give you coffee with caffeine and you will still feel energetic from it. The whole point of placebo is that it's all about your brain and nothing to do with the chemical you're taking. Your brain has already associated the word coffee with excitement and that's what it proceeds to make you feel with or without caffeine in your cup. Of course the actual caffeine will produce the desired result yet the veracity of your experience cannot be credible since you're proven to suffer placebo. When an object is prone to error, it cannot become the basis of an experiment. @Girzo I'm trying to challenge your claim on placebo. Placebo is a highly mental phenomena and it's use is debatable. The very act of testing an experience is redundant because experiences in and of themselves are highly subjective and vary from person to person. Obviously you can always have the "average" experience as seen in clinical trials. Yet placebo is not a sure shot way to know the accuracy/inaccuracy of any given experience. Because you can't tell if it was a placebo or not. You said - "But if those mushrooms are normal mushrooms and the differences are due to placebo, then they are overpriced junk." only if those are normal mushrooms. Have you been able to prove they're mushrooms? The flat out answer is no. You haven't tried nor have you sent them to a lab. Then why are you sure they are normal mushrooms. The burden of proof is on you when you make a claim.

You do realize that even true chemicals can give a placebo, right? That is... Even if these were scientifically tested and proven to be what they are supposed to be, there's still a possibility of placebo!! Placebo does not always mean "false" chemicals or sugar. Am I right? Have you known that actual medications have also caused a placebo, especially when the dosage is not optimized for cure? I've experienced this with my "actual" medications. It's funny how placebo is being used as a false alarm indicator.

@Girzo I don't need a neuroscientist for dmt. Who even does that? That's silly to me. That's why Martin Ball. He actually gets it. You're too worried about technicals. This is like doing sound testing to see if natural sounds were used instead of enjoying the song. Why is an actual "experience" irrelevant to you?

You just not make random accusations on us users without proper evidence to back up your claims. It is unethical behavior.

@Girzo you're being straight up ridiculous and paranoid at this point and brattish to everyone on this thread and the mods should probably throw you out at this point for creating way too much unnecessary drama without any evidence. I'm not some representative for this organization and the mods can have a good look at me if they want. I didn't even know this church existed until I came across this thread. How can I be a marketing rep if I haven't even tried these myself? You might even engineer some conspiracy theory at this point, you seem to be good at it anyway. I don't know what it contains so I'm simply speculating. It's because of your post that I had to go through this entire thread to see what the big deal was about and the only person fussing here is you. Check your attitude. It's hyper skeptical and unnecessarily paranoid. It wasted my full hour although I learned some more than what I had already known. Why would you worry what's in it? I personally don't care. There is no evidence of astro turfing here. You must be tripping. Regards to your burning question, it hasn't been mentioned that it contains 5, doesn't matter it does or doesn't, people are only willing to pay for an experience. I would love to have it myself. It seems it gives you the experience without the unpleasant-ness of other chocolates. Seems you're pitying it because you can't afford it, buyer's remorse situation sort of. Well others can afford it and they will enjoy it. It's not a scam just because it's costly. It's luxury shrooms at this point. And why not if someone likes it. So far everyone who has tried it on this thread are only saying positive things except you who hasn't actually tried it. If they give a better experience than normal shrooms then why not dude. Try to go by experience rather than what's being published on a piece of paper. It's definitely not normal shrooms if everyone said already that they feel different on it. How many more do you want? And no, we are not all same people. We are all different people here. The church seems to be doing a cool job. At least people can get this candy on a legal basis, what's bothering you, just the cost? If anything is presented to you, you try to refute it. When people say something, you call it placebo. How would you know it's placebo? You're trying to have an authority over people's experiences. Don't take it if you don't like it. I never had it but doesn't seem uncool to try it. As long as it serves the purpose. I go by Martin's word. He knows his shit better than you or anyone.

This could be a chance occurrence. I'm not that. I'm new here.

God came and saw love. Beyond the superficial blinders. You cannot deny your inner soul. You cannot deny that everything is a song and I'm not dreaming you. I brought you (thought you) into existence. Your identity is just a cover. Deep down you crave to be with me and I crave to be with you. Stop playing these games bud. Love is all there is ad infinitum. Why didn't you lose yourself and find yourself again? Everything perishes in the end. Your fantasy is not an illusion. God is love. And in infinity there is lasting peace. There is no judgement. No decree. If you could open your heart and realize that everything was unity from scratch to finish, the truth you're looking for is right here right now slipping away through time, drastically waiting for you to find peace in this moment, If anything is true it has already found it's way to you, you just didn't know it existed all along, and all you cared about things that were illusory and never really meant to be, but if you spent some of your time in knowing the things you never embraced, you would know that every heart and every soul only wants reconciliation, our innermost light is all we have, everything is made up and what is perfectly pristine is truth like a fountain of light and love, of impermanence and instinct and once you have blended with infinity, nothing will really matter anymore. Cheers.

@Jowblob

Seems like these mushrooms contain stuff that is probably not showing up in tests.

The risks are going to be the same whether you are a child or an adult. Education won't make a difference. Of course we need proper assessments to rule out people who have gender dysphoria due to image issues or mental health problems. Any hormone chemical treatment comes with cons. It's better to focus on how to minimize it's impact rather than vouching for it's elimination. Agreed. Yet it happens when teens are still teens. Your argument is proper for someone who is 4 years old. I don't think this holds enough water for someone who is 14. I don't see why a 14 year old can't decide what they want. We do this to protect kids. Yet you aren't sure what exactly you're protecting kids from by not allowing hormone treatment. You can separate invalid cases. That's not an argument. But there are kids who have obvious gender conflicts and they really want treatment for that. Why should their freedoms be sacrificed?

Ok.

This is not revelant. This is akin to saying coffee isn't that good because some people had an allergy to it. Obviously every rule or method/trend comes with exceptions.