Why is this debate only prevalent in the US? I don't see people questioning evolution in other parts of the world. The Vatican even accepts evolution and not creationism. What is it about America that merits such a debate when everywhere else it's a non-issue?
thesingingsquirrel
thesingingsquirrel
Now playing
Spaced.
The problem with Erikson is that he is wordy and confusing for the sake of being wordy and confusing ad not because it makes any sense at all.
This is such BS and it's coming from someone that obviously don't smoke and probably never has even tried it. It's not a gateway drug at all, I've never seen anyone go from weed to hard drugs, you have to understand that if weed makes you happy and it does that, there is then no reason to go to anything harder. If you…
I used to smoke pot, for the high. Now I don't. I never tried anything else. I would probably keep doing it, if it were legal, but I didn't like feeling scared I might get caught and dealing with shady people. Also, I had a job the entire time, was very responsible, and took care of my business.
"If you take Cannabis for anything other than medicinal (you are looking for the high) then you would probably go to the heavier stuff".
Way to over generalize addiction.
Additionally, my father never did any "illegal" drugs. He was, however, addicted to alcohol. My personal experience is that cigarettes and booze do more harm. (This lifelong combination cost him his life to throat cancer in Nov 2012. a mere 3 days before my birthday. RIP Dad.)
I know a few people who started on the "hard stuff" and moved on to cannabis (which is now ALL they do). It's not the gateway drug many claim it is.
Patently untrue, the gateway drug theory is bullshit. As a smoker (medical and recreational) I can tell you that people are that gateway. If you have to go to shady places and interact with shady people to get bud, you're probably going to be exposed to other things just because of the black market. If you take those…
There are also plenty of people who tried the harder stuff and eventually got bored with it, all while maintaining jobs and relationships just like teetotalers manage to do. Just because you try something stronger, it doesn't mean you become addicted to it and turn into a lunatic.
"then you would probably go to the heavier stuff "
That gateway drug crap is a myth.
Cannabis consumption doesn't lead to the use of other illegal drugs, illegal drug consumption leads to the use of other illegal drugs. If we stopped the prohibition on cannabis people would treat it no differently than tobacco or alcohol.
One thing some might find difficult is he doesnt really explain his magic system, it takes awhile to begin to get a idea of what might be possible with it.
I'd also add that they differ from most fantasy in that they're not based on a NutraSweet version of medieval Europe, but more on something a little bit like the Byzantine empire. Sort of. With lots of characters who aren't white, and with blackness not being evil. And written by a guy who used to be a professional…
I'd say the first six books are awesome, the seventh is starting to lose it, then eight, nine and ten have jumped the shark. But they had one hell of a shark and kiddy pool to jump over.
Depends on what you're into. I mainly like them because the magic system is so rich and complex, and the history of the world is tied up with the 'physics' of the world's magic in interesting ways. This gives a really fun sense of grappling with the world and gaining some new understanding of how thing are, instead of…
They're... not for everyone, and it's hard to predict whether you'll like it without trying them. They're very complex with a lot of plot threads and characters to follow. In my opinion, Erikson is not the greatest at characterization; they don't keep me up at night wanting to know what happens to these people. But…