Warning of the dangers of K2

By -
There are now ads up all around NYC proclaiming:

K2: 0% marijuana, 100% dangerous.

Certainly, the dangers of K2 should not be underestimated! See, for instance:

"K2 is known as the Savage Mountain due to the extreme difficulty of ascent. It has the second-highest fatality rate among the eight thousanders. With around 300 successful summits and 77 fatalities, about one person dies on the mountain for every four who summit."



That for sure counts as 100% dangerous! But was there really anyone out there who thought that it was made of marijuana?! Does that thing look like it is made of marijuana?

Comments

  1. Thomas L. Knapp12:04 PM

    Well, if they'd legalize marijuana, all those teenagers wouldn't be running off to the Himalayas to FIND OUT if it is made of marijuana, would they?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Andy2:54 PM

    Do you have any idea what the street value would be?

    https://youtu.be/ZWkT0g3FrOk

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ken B9:05 PM

    So you'd have no objection to
    "K2: 0% crack cocaine, 100% dangerous" then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah9:27 PM

      Yeah, it does look a little like a big pile o' blow, don't it?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more