For lots of people even survival is difficult is the point

They aren't denying any genocide.

Flu shots are only given to the elderly and vulnerable where I live. It's weird to see people talking about getting the flu shot like it's a normal thing.

Hyponatremia wouldn't happen without the drug. Nothing you have said changes that.

I have maintained that 500mg is dangerous and lethal in the right circumstances. It's not my fault you don't understand what circumstances are. The lethality of this particular drug like any drug is dependent on the individual and the situation. People have literally died at 500mg.

The only person moving goalposts here is you.

Bait and switch.

I never said doing 300mg total was dangerous. I said doing 500mg+ is dangerous especially when you're taking more after that.

It's like me saying having a whole bottle of vodka is a bad idea and then you turning around and going having a few pints is fine.

You've spent half this time defending people that take 1g at a time and now you're turning around and saying something sensible to defend yourself. Bait and switch much?

The fact you have to say probably not deadly is because we both know it's killed people, especially women. Like yeah you could be fine, or you could end up in hospital/dead. Why take the risk? Or at least own up to the fact it is a risk.

I've not said anything that isn't true so why you want to call me misleading I don't know. This is why e-tards are fucking annoying, cause you don't admit what you do is dangerous or reckless. When I do drugs recklessly I can admit it and tell other people it's a stupid fucking idea, even if I got lucky and was fine. You just want to pretend everything you do is safe so you can feel better about yourself and your friends (until someone dies cause their tolerance isn't as high as they thought).

won't kill u assuming u stay hydrated yet not overhydrated and don't overexert yourself

As if over hydration isn't exactly what kills people. Tell me do you know of hyponatremia?

I am not a fucking American. I have seen people drop 1g into a drink and chug the whole thing. That doesn't make it smart. Yeah it's sometimes survivable (2g is thought to be the lethal dose), but that doesn't make it not risky.

I am guessing you're a man as well as this has a significant impact on hospitalisations and lethality. Have a read of this: https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/2016/11/128745/young-women-ecstasy-deaths-uk

The thing I really don't get is why on earth you would want to do that much. Like at 500mg you've pretty much hit receptor saturation already. Doing more than that makes no sense. People who do 1g at a time tend to act like knob heads anyway, probably because they've done too much and make it everyone else's problem.

People have literally died from doing 500mg before. The only reason you are alive is because you spread your doses out over 4 days. So don't say "1 md bender won't kill you" because the way you do it very much could.

People have died from pills under 500mg so your not wrong. Women and girls are more susceptible to it than men and boys, and body size also has an impact.

You need help…

I mean it's more survivable than doing it all at once but like why? It's gonna lose effectiveness by the end and the come down must be awful.

Nobody is doing 7 grams and not overdosing. 1g is already well into possible overdose territory.

Glad you learned something. Normally this is where I get told that the marxist version of the term is wrong or dumb even though it’s closer to the original meaning than the modern definition.

I am sure the authors of Merriam Webster don’t mean anything harmful. Dictionaries update their definitions based on how they see the term being used, and many modern people don’t respect the original meaning of the term. In political circles we still use the original meaning. You can see why this causes confusion.

You’re using a definition from a random dictionary. This is neither the original meaning of the term nor the one Marxists use. The version you looked up is a “new” bastardization of the original term.

The bourgeois class under marxism is the class that makes money by owning capital through the labor of others. Think about people who own businesses or have large investments. They don’t make all that money themselves, they make it from people who work in facilities they own.

There is something called petite bourgeois that could be called middle class. These are small business owners who both work their own business but also have employees they profit from. Marxists care about how you make money, not how much.

Why does he blow the whistle?

The bourgeois are the rich. You have been misreading the whole thing.

Given it’s responsible for many or even most democratic societies I would generally say yes.

You realize lots of societies including American and France were formed around terrorism and coup d’état?

You know it’s not often I agree with lemmygrad or hexbear but I think they have a point here. Shocking that people are against this. Ideally we would kill the billionaires that own this infrastructure as well, rather than just destroy it and hope they don’t rebuild.