6 Awesome Pro-Marijuana Ads [pics]

Continue reading for more! Created by Rigo14


Related Posts with Thumbnails
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
  • Pingback: Tweets that mention 6 Awesome Pro-Marijuana Ads [pics] | I Love Weed -- Topsy.com()

  • http://www.musicbyday.com Marvin

    Brilliant ads. The truth about marijuana must be spread in the face of anti-marijuana propaganda aimed at “middle America” … especially as this big legalization vote is coming up in California.

  • http://www.musicbyday.com Marvin

    Brilliant ads. The truth about marijuana must be spread in the face of anti-marijuana propaganda aimed at “middle America” … especially as this big legalization vote is coming up in California.

  • Pingback: This should be fun...What are you thinking right now.. - Page 55 - WeedTRACKER()

  • Pingback: The Organic Homesteader()

  • Jon

    Excellent advertisements and considering the company that made them, I hope to see those ads on a billboard near me soon!

    In addition to the first and last ads as well, Marijuana, when combined with heavy alcohol consumption (enough to kill brain cells, at least), actually INHIBITS brain cell death from excessive drinking.

    One of the radio advertisements I’ve been hearing lately on Aussie radio:

    “If I hadn’t smoked it…who knows….maybe i could have been….famous or something”

    Yeah, cause there’s no famous people who have ever smoked pot. Stop lying to us, government.

    Hopefully Gillard has the brains to see past the BS this term.

    • Pino

      No famous potheads? Doesn’t the name Tommy Chong ring a bell?

      • Erg

        … I hate it when people don’t understand sarcasm.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rigo14 Rajan Shrestha

      These are my ad.. u can see em over at rigo14.deviantart.com..and the “company” is fictional.. so sadly u wont be seeing them on billboards any time soon.. I didnt realise they were spreading on the internet.. i originally just made for a friend.. well., its good to know ppl like it.

      • http://ant1ph0n.deviantart.com ant1ph0n

        ahh, that explains it all, probably a typical deviantart user.

    • http://ant1ph0n.deviantart.com ant1ph0n

      are you serious? on a billboard? there’s so many mistakes with these ads: no kerning, no tracking, no leading, body text hard to read in areas, element placement is all fucked up, pictures could be better, all around tacky. don’t get me wrong, i love the idea but this guy shouldn’t fuck around with photoshop/illustrator ’cause they suck.

      • guest

        someone went to college and thinks they are all smart and stuffs

      • http://www.facebook.com/greg.seth.56 Greg Seth

        I have a Masters in Design and run a firm, and i agree with him. You should try college. You know, put down the pipe and get motivated.

  • Jon

    Excellent advertisements and considering the company that made them, I hope to see those ads on a billboard near me soon!

    In addition to the first and last ads as well, Marijuana, when combined with heavy alcohol consumption (enough to kill brain cells, at least), actually INHIBITS brain cell death from excessive drinking.

    One of the radio advertisements I’ve been hearing lately on Aussie radio:

    “If I hadn’t smoked it…who knows….maybe i could have been….famous or something”

    Yeah, cause there’s no famous people who have ever smoked pot. Stop lying to us, government.

    Hopefully Gillard has the brains to see past the BS this term.

    • Pino

      No famous potheads? Doesn’t the name Tommy Chong ring a bell?

    • http://www.facebook.com/rigo14 Rajan Shrestha

      These are my ad.. u can see em over at rigo14.deviantart.com..and the “company” is fictional.. so sadly u wont be seeing them on billboards any time soon.. I didnt realise they were spreading on the internet.. i originally just made for a friend.. well., its good to know ppl like it.

  • E Cartman

    The country does not need potheads running around loose. Unless the government legalizes the killing of potheads or introduce some form of “cash-back-for-every-pothead-killed” program, we must band together and keep this drug from being legalized. No, Its not dangerous, but I’ll be damned if I have to see one goddamn hippie smoking a joint in my neighborhood. Smoking is a disgusting habit.

    ADMIN EDIT: Please ignore the trolls of the internet. They like to annoy people and that is their only purpose.

    • http://iloveweed.net Evilpig

      Fuck you.

    • Eli

      Yeah! Fuck marijuana! Smoking is the worst thing ever!

      But cigarettes are totally cool though.

    • 420

      Yeah Fuck You.

    • SocietyAsunder

      And Eric Cartman would truly be proud, but Cartman is an asshole just like you.

      • http://iloveweed.net Evilpig

        You speak the truth. :)

  • E Cartman

    The country does not need potheads running around loose. Unless the government legalizes the killing of potheads or introduce some form of “cash-back-for-every-pothead-killed” program, we must band together and keep this drug from being legalized. No, Its not dangerous, but I’ll be damned if I have to see one goddamn hippie smoking a joint in my neighborhood. Smoking is a disgusting habit.

    ADMIN EDIT: Please ignore the trolls of the internet. They like to annoy people and that is their only purpose.

    • http://iloveweed.net Evilpig

      Fuck you.

    • Eli

      Yeah! Fuck marijuana! Smoking is the worst thing ever!

      But cigarettes are totally cool though.

    • 420

      Yeah Fuck You.

    • SocietyAsunder

      And Eric Cartman would truly be proud, but Cartman is an asshole just like you.

      • http://iloveweed.net Evilpig

        You speak the truth. :)

    • joe

      Mmmm yes… feed the troll, he is… HUNGRY

    • melissahasnoidea

      lmao There’s already potheads “running on the loose” in America. You probably don’t even notice them.

    • scumkiller

      You need to get an education. Seriously. It’s time for you to go back to school, and learn a thing or two. Or three. Uneducated people like you is what’s fucking this planet up. When I read shit like this, I become a thousand times more grateful for my mother and that she DIDN’T drink while she was pregnant with me. Although, I’m pretty sure I can’t say the same about you. Hell, you were probably a crack baby! I say, we get the license to kill very uneducated and violent people like you…because people like YOU are the ones who deserve to die. You’re complete scum…pure, unadulterated scum. You and everyone like you…you shouldn’t be allowed to breathe the same air as the rest of us, let alone exist. So how about you get a library card, and maybe some meds to offset the mental retardation that occurred while you were in the womb because your mother was a crack head. THEN maybe your opinion will be WORTH something.

      • melvin

        “you need an education” “its time for you to go back to school, and learn a thing or two” “uneducated people like you is whats fucking this planet up” and then alot about whoever you are talking about being wrong. but nowhere did you post any facts or even express any opinion whatsoever that could be used for proving anything. great job. i would say you accomplished something but we both know that isnt true. sorry. im not saying that your post above wasnt true or that your stupid im jus sayin there is a better way to get things done than flinging random insults.

      • MK

        Most Thought-Provoking Comment award goes to scumkiller for guiding me with care and concern, wisdom and facts, to see his point of view. Once I figure out what his point of view is, I’ll be sure to champion it. All i’ve got so far is along the lines of ‘everyone that isn’t me or someone i know and like personally should die’. But, you know, there’s to read into it, so give me some time to get the real pearls out.

  • d1e6om

    What the world needs is less mononeuronal asswipes like you. We will never stop smoking…NEVER. Oh, Fuck you by the way.

  • d1e6om

    What the world needs is less mononeuronal asswipes like you. We will never stop smoking…NEVER. Oh, Fuck you by the way.

  • Sue

    Well if hippies were running around the neighborhood smoking joints the world would be a much more peaceful place. Instead we have drunks running around causing trouble and being violent towards others.
    I know what my choice is.
    By the way you don’t have to smoke it, in a cake or biscuit we can be smashed for much longer, mmm might start baking, lol.
    Legalize it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/greg.seth.56 Greg Seth

      Actually we are run by people that put a value on education and moderation.

  • Sue

    Well if hippies were running around the neighborhood smoking joints the world would be a much more peaceful place. Instead we have drunks running around causing trouble and being violent towards others.
    I know what my choice is.
    By the way you don’t have to smoke it, in a cake or biscuit we can be smashed for much longer, mmm might start baking, lol.
    Legalize it.

  • me

    It’s a World concern..its affecting a bounche of people around the world..Legalized it..it will be the solution!!

  • me

    It’s a World concern..it\s affecting a bounche of people around the world..Legalized it..it will be the solution!!

  • tct

    …dont smoke weed there is a few and we’re a bounche…And by the way Eli..fuck U!!!

  • tct

    …don\t smoke weed there is a few and we’re a bounche…And by the way Eli..fuck U!!!

  • Matt

    Bring it to Florida for fucks sake.

  • Matt

    Bring it to Florida for fucks sake.

  • ash

    I love cannabis, but it gives me “hangovers” if I smoke too much. I feel groggy, my motivation and cognitive ability is greatly reduced for two or three days, even if I don’t smoke those days.

    It doesn’t do the damage alcohol does physiologically, but just thought I’d point that out.

    I’ve had to cut back blazing to once or twice a month while I finish nursing school.

    Legalize it tho, and let reasonable people decide what to ingest!!! :)

    • scumkiller

      yeah it shouldn’t be the governments concern what we put in our bodies. Look at Portugal! Drugs are 100% decriminalized. All of them. If you get caught with drugs, they offer you to go to rehab. The rate of people addicted to drugs there has significantly decreased since this plan has been implemented.

      • Rotatebilly

        That is true, but the rates of arrest of drug dealers is nearly zero, not because there aren’t many drug dealers but because the drug dealers get away scott-free by claiming they are only drug users

      • Less_than_sacred

         What does that have to do with what scum said?

    • Phoenixalima

      You’re smoking ditch weed. Stop it.

    • M Maclachlan

      Buy bush.

  • ash

    I love cannabis, but it gives me “hangovers” if I smoke too much. I feel groggy, my motivation and cognitive ability is greatly reduced for two or three days, even if I don’t smoke those days.

    It doesn’t do the damage alcohol does physiologically, but just thought I’d point that out.

    I’ve had to cut back blazing to once or twice a month while I finish nursing school.

    Legalize it tho, and let reasonable people decide what to ingest!!! :)

  • Amy

    Ash – you’re a fucking light weight then.

    • KyleOMac

      LOL, these ad’s were funny and Ash, you fail if your hungover for days! N00B

  • Amy

    Ash – you’re a fucking light weight then.

    • KyleOMac

      LOL, these ad’s were funny and Ash, you fail if your hungover for days! N00B

  • Jay

    These are greatt adds but don’t forget about why pot is still illegal…. money, big money. Imagine how much money the big (government subsidized) companies would loose if pot were legal, copious amounts of people would be smoking joints instead of smoking cigarettes and drinking beer, as well as the loss in fines foe drunk driving, being drunk in a public place and illegal cigarette trades, shit… you can grow weed in your own home or on a small piece of property, why would the government want you to be able to do that? Money …thanks for reading.

    • Jho

      I think your right with cigarettes but a lot of people still like to drink when they smoke and im sure their dumbasses would still drink and drive and you can grow tobacco yet I dont see every person that owns a home with their own tobacco plant so im sure people wont grow their own weed in fact a lot of money would be made and I doubt that any would be lost 

  • Jay

    These are greatt adds but don’t forget about why pot is still illegal…. money, big money. Imagine how much money the big (government subsidized) companies would loose if pot were legal, copious amounts of people would be smoking joints instead of smoking cigarettes and drinking beer, as well as the loss in fines foe drunk driving, being drunk in a public place and illegal cigarette trades, shit… you can grow weed in your own home or on a small piece of property, why would the government want you to be able to do that? Money …thanks for reading.

  • Rocky Fisher

    LEGALIZE!!

  • Rocky Fisher

    LEGALIZE!!

  • Korn

    Amazing how people are ignorant

    A drug addict stupid population is what I want, a population that cannot think by themselves…

    • individual

      thank you. legalizing weed will not cause world peace or fix all the financial problems. quit making up excuses for you getting high. people smoke weed because it’s fun and it makes you feel good. that’s it. all this bullshit about “i get stoned and i just love everyone and if everyone in the world smoked it there would be no wars” is the dumbest thing i’ve ever heard. get real. drugs are fun, but they aren’t solutions to the world’s problems.

      • k

        if it were to be leagalized not everyone would smoke. and it does have many medical uses. and even if it would not fix the financial problems it could help. many people would choose to buy it from the dr. or however they decide to do it. becuase it would be safer than getting it from a dealer or other shady situations. many people smoke as is and will continue to weather its for fun or for medical reasons so why not play on that and the government can make money at the same time. and btw some people on here dont have to be so harsh and say they want to kill people. you can state your opinion with out attacking other people

    • L

      Individual, i agree with you, but Korn, what the fuck? So if weed is legalized, everyone in the world will become drug addicts? Yeah, thats logical. Talk about being ignorant.

    • MK

      Some of history’s greatest influencers in music, the arts, philosophy and even politics were weed smokers. They not only thought for themselves but helped to change a generation. I’m not sure where you’re getting your ‘people who smoke weed can’t think for themselves’ information, but it seems to be based in ignorance.

    • Jeff

      so instead you get a mob of ramped up drunk idiots and whores who wanna molest everyone in site

      guys weed is illegal because back in the day mostly minorities smoked it, it had no place in authority type lifestyles, it also makes someone questions 90% of what we do in society a rather pointless greedy endeavor

      guys who bash smokers are not perfect either

      I live in a small Texas town, enough said there. I would be considered an outcast if everyone knew I smoked. But yet I have the nicest cleanest house, better garden, exotic plants and awesome did it my self landscaping compared to all of my strictly beer guzzling in-laws and some friends.

      Their houses look like crap, cans everywhere across the yard, beer makes you more lazy I think and really impairs judgement your more likely to sleep with the ugly chic. Not only that but you can be a energized drunk idiot.

      In my life the times I regret the most and acted so stupid was always too much booze, never mary jane.

  • Korn

    Amazing how people are ignorant

    A drug addict stupid population is what I want, a population that cannot think by themselves…

    • individual

      thank you. legalizing weed will not cause world peace or fix all the financial problems. quit making up excuses for you getting high. people smoke weed because it’s fun and it makes you feel good. that’s it. all this bullshit about “i get stoned and i just love everyone and if everyone in the world smoked it there would be no wars” is the dumbest thing i’ve ever heard. get real. drugs are fun, but they aren’t solutions to the world’s problems.

    • L

      Individual, i agree with you, but Korn, what the fuck? So if weed is legalized, everyone in the world will become drug addicts? Yeah, thats logical. Talk about being ignorant.

      • quig

        there is no addicting chemicals in marijuana fagget

      • http://iloveweed.net Evilpig

        You can still be respectful.

      • http://www.facebook.com/greg.seth.56 Greg Seth

        Nice spelling and homophobia.

  • Pingback: Six More Awesome Pro-Marijuana Ads | I Love Weed()

  • http://nugporn.com Weedlover714

    wow..super awesome ads. i’m showing these to my wife to convince her it’s all good! ha.

  • http://nugporn.com Weedlover714

    wow..super awesome ads. i’m showing these to my wife to convince her it’s all good! ha.

  • http://lala hunten

    The Only way to die from marijuana is to ingest 5 pounds of pot in a matter of 7 minutes… I think you’re safe smokin pot.

  • Annabel Aquas

    There’s a website for anything nowadays it appears!

  • quig

    u can tell michael phelps smokes alot…his bong is damn near black in the middle hahahahaha

  • http://www.marijuanaconnections.com coloradomedicalmarijuana

    Ha Ha! Who doesn’t love Mary Jane? That’s Awesome…Great Ads!

  • http://www.mbioc.net Musa

    Please visit http://www.mbioc.net and watch and please share http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojfRhgYBzHk

    February 3, 2011

    Decriminalize or Legalize Marijuana?

    This address is a call but also a question. We are calling for the decriminalization or legalization of marijuana. On the same note, we are questioning should we decriminalize or legalize marijuana. Either one will be better than its present prohibited status.

    The effects on society between the options differ and that precisely beseech a responsible leaning. I emphasize leaning, those who favor decriminalization must not over-emphasize the dangers in legalization. Similarly, those who favor legalization must understand the importance of partnering with the pro-decriminalization movement. In a nutshell, we need a soft debate between the two.

    Can we legalize then later decriminalize or can we decriminalize then later legalize? History taught us once a product is legalized, its usage mounts and the status is hardly reversible. There are different forms of decriminalization and I favor marijuana as a decriminalized controlled product.

    Before going much further on why should we decriminalize or legalize Marijuana, we may need to highlight why Marijuana is prohibited. The primary reason why politicians prohibit marijuana is money. Marijuana is not very tax friendly. There are too many types of marijuana, some of them smell good, some look good, and some unbearable.

    Governments have enough research information that understands most marijuana smokers prefer it fresh and natural. People prefer ‘free things’ or least cost and easy access. Simply put: unless there is some form of control, people will prefer to have it in their back yard or living room rather than from the stores. It will take away many jobs beyond the cigarette and alcohol industries. So there is some understandable reasoning to at least control it.

    As much as I belief in taxes to governments and job creation for society; I also belief in humanity and the present effects of criminalizing marijuana is a systematic crime against humanity, especially to the black race in America. So the need to compromise is paramount. People must understand government need taxes to survive and government’s interest is not necessarily against public interest. Likewise, governments must learn to accommodate human weaknesses as part of public interest.

    Not only do we need different approach to the drug problem but some strategic alternative options must be employed. As more ex-government officials, from police chiefs to politicians, increasingly favor legalization – it becomes a sign of hope but also worries.

    Indeed legalization is better than criminalization but there are some serious possibilities with legalization. The gamble is beyond maximum usage through competitive legal baiting or advertising. Suppose the new legal marijuana industry cannot convince the public into buying their products over harvesting the back yard tree – it could be a big blow financially and health wise.

    Legalization means millions will be pumped into research and billions in to marketing with convincing claims to attract innocent people beyond America. In this global village, we shouldn’t be indifferent to the plight of innocent children anywhere. The cigarette industry is a perfect example. At around age nine, I was legally smoking subsidized American made cigarettes in one of Africa’s poorest nation, the Gambia.

    Today, the U.S government is suing the tobacco industry for “over fifty years of lying.” A prominent U.S politician celebrates Iran’s high cigarette consumptions. How many of us are indifferent to what cigarette is doing to the millions of children in poor countries? Marijuana won’t be no different, they will worsened the effects. If we allow them, they will keep playing games on the people and the very companies they licensed.

    We must sincerely care for each other in learning, working, and having fun within the boundaries of Justice and tolerance. I sincerely believe many people can support marijuana to the comparable level of the so called ‘responsible drinkers’. Like alcohol, I am certain that people will abuse it or more accurately: it will abuse people. The things we cannot change, we must control.

    By having Marijuana as a decriminalized accessible controlled substance means less crime and criminals; less pre-employment drug tests; less negative association with worse criminals; better research and education on the product and its users; better utilization of tax dollars to finance private prisons; less senseless “war on drugs”; less gangs and gang wars; etc .

    It is important to note that misinformation by government authorities and the media is largely responsible for the wrong focus on drugs as a means to wealth. They are using lies to attract poor kids to drugs. For example, large drug seizures are bloated from its true value to the so called “street value”, meaning retail value. We all know the power of words. We choose words, including metric choice, based on reasons. They understand that wordings have effects on people’s mind. And by over estimating drug seizure values and the drug industry, poor weak minds will be attracted to the drug world.

    I am not claiming there is no money in the drug industry but I am 100% certain that they are over estimating it on a purpose. I sold wholesale marijuana in the U.S for about three months, selling about 50 pounds a week. I knew people who sold lot more and other drugs. Considering the kind of mind God blessed me with, plus my experience, I certainly understand the industry more than many of your trusted journalists and police officers.

    Everyday, I see people who legally make lot more money than the average drug dealer. If they had caught me with fifty pounds, they would have estimated it in the millions based on its retail value. The reality is I sold wholesale, had partners, had other expenses just like any other business. Wholesale is not retail, gross sale is not gross profit, and gross profit is not net profit.

    Since most of our Ghetto kids are born poor and hardly have business knowledge; $1000 a week is a lot and may be bragged as net profit. We have a duty to scrutinize what the ghetto kid, the Rapper, Police officers and the journalists are claiming. Considering there are other important points I want to address, I will urge those who are not convinced that drug money is exaggerated to please visit http://www.mbioc.net. I will have a more detail article on it.

    We have a separate project to help stop pre-employment drug testings. Pre-employment drug testing is one of the worse systematic discrimination in the U.S that needs to be confronted. By denying people employment just because they use Marijuana, we are essentially sending them to the streets to commit crimes. Then we blame them or blame the crimes on drugs, when we should blame it on pre-employment drug testings. I guess some of us cannot look very far or we simply accept what we want to see. The other project will be more detail on this topic. I still want you to understand it is originally done a purpose to filter some people unnecessarily. As we leave it unchallenged, other companies may copy on ‘innocent’ but faulty purpose. We must establish a database of all companies that drug tests unnecessarily to seize the practice forthwith or face boycott or much worse.

    Black America is worse affected by these unnecessary tests. Life is a distinctive test from collective tests. We must focus on the distinctive aspect without ignoring the collective aspect. Due to power distribution, every God’s choice, including race, comes with some forms of strength and weaknesses. Between God’s choices, including race: we ought to appreciate each other’s blessings without worshiping and help improve each other’s challenges with learning, tolerance, and contentment. The above boundaries are highly significant. Appreciate! Not worship, nor demean. Improve! Not despise, nor ignore. We cannot be good or bad based on any of God’s choices.

    In general, we can reasonably claim blacks are more attracted to marijuana as white people are more attracted to alcohol. Those of you who disagree can visit http://www.mbioc.net where I will substantiate it with examples and performable tests. Rather than confrontations, we should accept reality and find a compromise for the common good.

    The reason why alcohol was prohibited in the U.S was partly money and the reason why marijuana is still prohibited in the U.S is grossly money. As too many white kids were turned criminals due to alcohol, some smart white people chose a different way of making money through alcohol without mass jailing of mistaken white kids. Today, every smart mind will admit the dangers of marijuana

    … Its prevalence and negative effects affect America at large but more so black America. We must revisit that compromise ground that may involve some level of gambling. We have seen a racially divided America on as little as the O.J Simpson case. This issue will be no different, at least at some point. The good news is there are many ‘Mr. Pat Robertsons’ who will understand this is more about Justice than race. The millions of white Americans who smoke Marijuana will understand it is more about Justice than race. Like numerous white people helped abolished slavery and fought for the civil rights under-achievements – many non-smoking black and white people will understand this is more about Justice and tolerance than anything. On the other side, the fewer evil men will focus or shift the debate on the secondary issues by trading blames and looking for faulty wordings. No matter what they say or do, let us to stay focus with the conviction that evolution and statistics will justify our standing.

    My appeal to Black America is to understand that: Freedom is something you ask and/or fight for. It is never given on a platter by the oppressors. So gently ask and smartly fight for your dues. There are different kinds and levels of fights. I am not asking anyone to take on the street for rioting, at least not at the moment. Marijuana is not necessarily a black thing. Smoking it does not make you black or any blacker. God knows why he seemingly made our children more attracted to it for testing purpose. Perhaps we will be rewarded more than others if we abstain from it or we may receive less punishment by using it. Just as we may ask why God make men weaker to women in respect to sex? The debate can be long but the responsibility to control ourselves has very little to do with what society accepts or condemns. It is a distinctive test from collective tests.

    Incomparable to God’s laws, human laws must not be rigidly worshiped. When the effects of laws produce worse than what they are meant to rectify – it is naturally wise to revisit those laws with alternative corrections. The laws are made for man, not man for laws. The war on drugs has woefully failed in America because: S/he who does not tolerate deserves the intolerable to learn to appreciate the tolerable. Decriminalizing marijuana is wiser for humanitarian reasons and perhaps even financially.

    Ask yourself what percentage of white kids suffered before white America said enough on prohibition? A Similar percentage of white kids may be suffering to prompt the ‘Pat Robertsons’ to have compassion. Ask yourself what percentage of black America is suffering due to the criminalization of marijuana? The fewer evil men are content with latter. Beyond America, look at Portugal, Netherlands, Canada and many other countries. Canada has comparable marijuana problems as the U.S, less the crime rate. How Canada managed it with lesser crime rate is something you should borrow, improve, and cherish more than basketball and hockey. Marijuana is so prevalent in Canada that some conservative American politicians repeatedly blame Canada as part of America’s drug problem. Marijuana is essentially decriminalized in Canada, the police literally ignore it here. We are just afraid to formalize it because the U.S may punish us; as about eighty percent of Canada’s economy is said to be somehow linked with the U.S. We even had a political party called the Marijuana party of Canada but its founder Mr Blair Longley was eventually extradited to the U.S.

    After this publication, America may order Canada to send me back to Africa or simply assassinate me. Canada has already punished me for standing up against America’s evil but I am not afraid. I believe in Justice and will continue to stand for Justice. Thinkers are not the problem, we are the solution. You have frowned at my publications before Portugal started what you are seemingly interested in. Here is an interesting recent publication I took from the Associated press through yahoo.

    I read: “Now, The united States, which has waged a 40 year, $1 trillion war on drugs, is looking for answers in tiny Portugal, which is reaping the benefits of what once looked like a dangerous gamble. White house drug czar Gil Kerlikowske visited Portugal in September to learn about its drug reforms, and other countries –including Norway, Danmark, Australia, and Peru – have taken interest, too.

    “The disasters that were predicted by critics didn’t happen,” Said university of Kent professor Alex Stevens, who has studied Portugal’s program. “The answers are simple: provide treatment”.

    Read carefully between the lines and don’t be fooled by their ostensible interest to learn. The U.S is there to study what to criticize than what to learn from. And unless we fight diligently, the media will likely justify their excuses. Another interesting information by the writer, referring to Portugal, he said: “An estimated 100,000 people -an astonishing one percent of the population were addicted to illegal drugs. So like anyone with little to lose, the Portuguese took a risky leap. They decriminalized the use of all drugs in a groundbreaking law in 2000.”

    Well, I guess if one percent is the new astonishing threshold to warrant efforts, then we should try really hard to prove one percent of the white house may be using marijuana. What percentage of America is using Marijuana and at what percentage will America consider serious efforts of alternative options?

    With God’s special help, we can win with ease. But under normal circumstances, we have a tough fight ahead. We can justify the need to decriminalize marijuana in the U.S through thinking, history, and other countries as examples. Concern citizens beyond race and political affliation should iniate a solid movement with aspiring action plans. Every three months, we need something new on our action plans beyond debating about it. We need solid action plans, secretly and openly. Secretly, because we will be against multi-billion dollar industries, a brutal government, and special interest groups who will be against us secretly and openly. We need God. We need many smart minds and brave hearts to expedite our victory. Thanks for your interest and I hope you will share this valuable information with at least hundred people. The topics mentioned will be detailed separately with substantiated examples on http://www.mbioc.net until we establish the leadership team and its web site. May God bless all Justice lovers. May God bless Showlove Trinity: Let’s learn, let’s work, let’s have fun.

    By Jigster

    Jigster is the founder of http://www.adfec.info and http://www.mbioc.net

    Please visit http://www.mbioc.net and watch and please share http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojfRhgYBzHk

    • http://iloveweed.net Evilpig

      You have made quite a few great points. Although, there is no way Canada will deport you or America assassinate you. What would be accomplished by that?

  • Amanda

    Just gotta say…the ignorant people of the world like quite a few who posted on here piss me off more than anything. The legalization of marijuana would benefit this country much more than it would hurt and people who deny that fact are simply brainwashed by the government. Weed is bad has been enforced for years. It’s going to take a lot to change the ignorant people of the world. Not a few ads. But frankly, why would someone look at a website that says “I love weed” in the title? Get the fuck off our site if you don’t like it. Assholes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/greg.seth.56 Greg Seth

      U MAD STONER?

  • http://ant1ph0n.deviantart.com ant1ph0n

    holy shit he/they fucked up the execution, rigo14/whatever studio should invest in some graphic design classes. at least outline/stroke the text rogen’s mock ad. and god damn, slanted body text is tacky if you’re going with a serious topic.

    • http://ant1ph0n.deviantart.com ant1ph0n

      also needs to learn fuckin’ kerning/leading/tracking. hyphenated words are retaaaaaaaaaaaaaarded.

  • Pingback: 6 awesome pro-weed ads - Grasscity.com Forums()

  • Travel

    One of the more impressive blogs Ive seen. Thanks so much for keeping the internet classy for a change. Youve got style, class, bravado. I mean it. Please keep it up because without the internet is definitely lacking in intelligence.

  • clarins men

    Articles that cause my brain cells to activate are perfect for me. Your views gave me plenty to think about and consider. Thank you for interesting and thought-provoking reading material.

  • Pingback: Kid Cudi Pro-Marijuana Ad | I Love Weed()

  • Pingback: payday loans compared()

  • Pingback: Feds Now Cracking Down On Marijuana Related Ads | Arkansas Medical Marijuana Guidelines & Regulations()

  • Pingback: Feds Now Cracking Down On Marijuana Related Ads | Kansas Medical Marijuana State Laws & Regulations()

  • Pingback: Feds Now Cracking Down On Marijuana Related Ads | Idaho Medica Marijuana State Laws & Guidelines()

  • Pingback: Feds Now Cracking Down On Marijuana Related Ads | Indiana Medical Marijuana State Laws & Regulations()

  • Pingback: Feds Now Cracking Down On Marijuana Related Ads | Louisiana Medical Marijuana State laws()

  • melvin

    this was very interesting. BUT some of negative comments on here are practically physically repulsive. I dont think i have personally seen this much hate expressed to even murderers. REALLY shows what kind of society we live in nowadays. and i dont see why its necessary to take time to express hate to someone else like this when instead you could express love towards something you desire to help. thats something some of you could learn from.

    • http://www.facebook.com/greg.seth.56 Greg Seth

      shut it hippie

      • http://www.facebook.com/greg.seth.56 Greg Seth

        stephen

        laurence

        &

        eric

        margolis

        Abstraction and the Origin of General Ideas
        philosophers’

        imprint

        2


        vol.

        12
        ,

        no.

        19

        (december

        2012
        )
        considering

        of

        a

        Man’s

        self,

        or

        others,

        and

        the

        ordinary

        proceedings

        of

        their

        Minds

        in

        Knowledge…”

        (1690/1975,

        III,

        iii,

        §9).

        Perhaps

        it

        is

        not

        surprising,

        then,

        that

        we

        know

        so

        little

        about

        abstraction.

        But

        given

        the

        recurring

        interest

        in

        abstraction,

        and

        given

        the

        importance

        of

        general

        ideas

        in

        thought,

        philosophers

        clearly

        need

        an

        explicit

        framework

        for

        understanding

        abstraction

        that

        isn’t

        beholden

        to

        introspection

        and

        that

        is

        open

        to

        the

        findings

        of

        perceptual

        and

        developmental

        psychology

        and

        related

        fields.

        Our

        aim

        in

        this

        paper

        is

        to

        provide

        a

        general

        framework

        that

        fills

        this

        gap

        and

        to

        explore

        some

        of

        its

        philosophical

        implications.

        One

        of

        our

        motivations

        is

        to

        identify

        the

        extent

        to

        which

        a

        process

        that

        is

        broadly

        like

        the

        one

        invoked

        by

        Locke

        and

        other

        philosophers

        can

        explain

        the

        acquisition

        of

        general

        representations.
        3

        We

        should

        note

        at

        the

        outset,

        though,

        that

        while

        this

        paper

        takes

        its

        inspiration

        from

        early

        philosophical

        discussions

        of

        abstraction,

        our

        focus

        is

        theoretical

        rather

        than

        historical.

        We

        are

        primarily

        interested

        in

        the

        explanatory

        benefits

        that

        can

        be

        obtained

        by

        something

        akin

        to

        the

        traditional

        notion

        of

        abstraction,

        not

        with

        the

        historical

        controversies

        regarding

        how

        Locke

        and

        other

        philosophers

        in

        the

        modern

        era

        are

        best

        interpreted.

        We’ll

        see

        that

        there

        are

        good

        reasons

        to

        abandon

        some

        of

        the

        features

        that

        figured

        prominently

        in

        traditional

        accounts

        of

        abstraction

        including

        the

        link

        between

        abstraction

        and

        anti-nativist

        views

        of

        cognitive

        development.

        Nonetheless,

        we

        believe

        that

        philosophers

        like

        Locke

        were

        right

        to

        emphasize

        the

        significance

        of

        abstraction

        as

        a

        means

        of

        acquiring

        general

        mental

        representations.

        Even

        if

        they

        were

        wrong

        3. In

        what

        follows,

        we

        will

        occasionally

        make

        reference

        to

        the

        acquisition

        of

        concepts
        ,

        where

        a

        concept

        is

        understood

        as

        a

        type

        of

        mental

        representation.

        However,

        nothing

        essential

        turns

        on

        this

        way

        of

        thinking

        about

        concepts.

        On

        views

        that

        take

        concepts

        to

        be

        a

        type

        of

        abstract

        object,

        abstraction

        may

        still

        be

        important

        to

        the

        acquisition

        of

        general

        concepts

        by

        way

        of

        mediating

        access

        to

        these

        abstracta.

        On

        such

        a

        view,

        our

        talk

        of

        acquiring

        concepts

        via

        abstraction

        should

        be

        understood

        in

        terms

        of

        acquiring

        general

        represen

        tations

        that

        have

        concepts

        as

        their

        semantic

        values.

        In

        any

        case,

        our

        focus

        in

        this

        paper

        is

        on

        the

        question

        of

        how

        general

        mental

        representations

        are

        acquired;

        our

        use

        of

        the

        term

        concept

        can

        be

        read

        as

        stipulatively

        referring

        to

        general

        mental

        representations.

        with

        broadly

        nominalistic

        scruples,

        while

        others

        (
        e.

        g
        .,

        Russell)

        have

        understood

        it

        to

        be

        an

        essential

        ingredient

        for

        making

        sense

        of

        realism

        about

        universals.

        Another

        reason

        why

        the

        psychological

        details

        of

        the

        process

        of

        abstraction

        have

        been

        so

        unclear

        is

        that

        philosophers

        have

        relied

        on

        introspection

        as

        the

        principal

        source

        of

        information

        about

        the

        process.

        Conflicting

        opinions

        regarding

        abstraction

        consequently

        turn

        on

        divergent

        claims

        about

        what

        introspection

        uncovers.

        While

        Locke

        takes

        it

        to

        be

        evident

        that

        introspection

        shows

        that

        general

        ideas

        like

        man

        or

        horse
        2

        are

        acquired

        through

        abstraction,

        others,

        including

        Berkeley

        and

        Hume,

        claim

        that

        they

        don’t

        see

        this

        at

        all

        when

        they

        look

        into

        their

        own

        minds.

        But

        even

        if

        everyone

        were

        to

        agree

        about

        the

        deliverance

        of

        introspection,

        that

        would

        still

        leave

        us

        largely

        in

        the

        dark

        about

        the

        process.

        From

        a

        contemporary

        vantage

        point,

        it

        is

        well

        established

        that

        much

        of

        the

        mind

        isn’t

        accessible

        to

        introspection

        and

        that

        introspective

        reports

        of

        psychological

        processes

        aren’t

        always

        trustworthy.

        There

        is

        little

        reason

        to

        think

        that

        the

        processes

        involved

        in

        abstraction

        should

        be

        an

        exception.

        We

        suspect,

        however,

        that

        the

        most

        important

        reason

        why

        the

        psychological

        details

        of

        the

        process

        of

        abstraction

        have

        remained

        obscure

        is

        that

        its

        adherents

        have

        not

        appreciated

        the

        need

        to

        provide

        a

        substantive

        explanation

        of

        how

        it

        works.

        As

        Chomsky

        has

        emphasized,

        this

        is

        often

        the

        case

        when

        it

        comes

        to

        the

        mind.

        “One

        difficulty

        in

        the

        psychological

        sciences

        lies

        in

        the

        familiarity

        of

        the

        phenomena

        with

        which

        they

        deal.

        A

        certain

        intellectual

        effort

        is

        required

        to

        see

        how

        such

        phenomena

        can

        pose

        serious

        problems

        or

        call

        for

        intricate

        explanatory

        theories.

        One

        is

        inclined

        to

        take

        them

        for

        granted

        as

        necessary

        or

        somehow

        ‘natural’”

        (Chomsky

        2006,

        p.

        21).

        Consider

        how

        Locke

        peppers

        his

        discussion

        with

        phrases

        that

        are

        meant

        to

        highlight

        the

        obviousness

        of

        his

        subject

        matter.

        For

        example:

        “That

        this

        is

        the

        way
        ,
        whereby Men first formed general
        Ideas,

        and general Names to them
        ,
        I

        think,

        is

        so

        evident,

        that

        there

        needs

        no

        other

        proof

        of

        it,

        but

        the

        2. We

        take

        Locke’s

        Ideas

        to

        be

        mental

        representations

        and

        will

        use

        expressions

        in

        small

        caps

        to

        refer

        to

        mental

        representations.

        stephen

        laurence

        &

        eric

        margolis

        Abstraction and the Origin of General Ideas
        philosophers’

        imprint

        3


        vol.

        12
        ,

        no.

        19

        (december

        2012
        )
        only

        leave

        out

        of

        the

        complex

        Idea

        they

        had

        of

        Peter

        and

        James
        ,
        Mary

        and

        Jane
        ,

        that

        which

        is

        peculiar

        to

        each,

        and

        retain

        only

        what

        is

        common

        to

        them

        all.

        (III,

        iii,

        §7)
        Locke

        scholars

        have

        debated

        how

        to

        interpret

        Locke’s

        remarks

        about

        the

        nature

        of

        abstraction

        and

        even

        whether

        he

        has

        a

        single

        account.

        This

        is

        understandable,

        since

        there

        is

        some

        unclarity

        about

        whether

        Lockean

        general

        ideas

        are

        formed

        by

        retaining

        the

        full

        representations

        associated

        with

        the

        particulars

        that

        an

        agent

        perceives.

        To

        some

        readers,

        it

        sounds

        like

        the

        full

        representations

        are

        retained

        and

        that

        abstraction

        involves

        attending

        to

        certain

        features

        as

        opposed

        to

        others.

        However,

        to

        others

        readers,

        there

        is

        the

        suggestion

        that

        an

        abstract

        idea

        may

        involve

        the

        construction

        of

        a

        new

        representation,

        one

        that

        takes

        some

        features

        from

        the

        representations

        of

        experienced

        particulars

        while

        omitting

        others.
        4

        Regardless

        of

        what

        the

        right

        story

        is

        about

        Locke,

        it

        is

        clear

        that

        he

        views

        abstraction

        as

        a

        process

        that

        is

        grounded

        in

        perception

        and

        that

        operations

        on

        the

        representations

        resulting

        from

        contact

        with

        particulars

        are

        the

        source

        of

        the

        ability

        to

        represent

        far

        more

        than

        the

        items

        that

        were

        originally

        perceived

        not

        just

        this

        white

        paper

        but

        all

        white

        objects,

        not

        just

        this

        man

        but

        all

        human

        beings,

        and

        so

        on.
        But

        how

        exactly

        can

        abstraction

        be

        the

        source

        of

        all

        general

        ideas?

        To

        see

        the

        force

        of

        this

        question,

        we

        need

        to

        step

        back

        and

        consider

        more

        carefully

        what

        input

        gets

        the

        process

        going.

        If

        abstraction

        is

        to

        explain

        the

        origins

        of

        all

        general

        representations,

        what

        kinds

        of

        representations

        can

        it

        draw

        upon,

        and

        how

        do

        they

        depict

        the

        particulars

        that

        an

        agent

        perceives?

        We

        will

        argue

        that

        there

        are

        four

        models

        of

        the

        representational

        input

        that

        are

        available

        to

        Locke

        but

        that

        none

        of

        these

        models

        can

        provide

        a

        satisfactory

        account

        of

        the

        origins

        of

        all

        general

        representations.

        The

        result,

        we

        will

        argue,

        4. The

        difference

        between

        these

        two

        approaches

        is

        nicely

        summed

        up

        by

        the

        contrast

        between

        J.

        L.

        Mackie’s

        description

        of

        abstraction

        as

        selective atten

        tion

        and

        Jonathan

        Dancy’s

        slogan

        that

        abstraction is subtraction

        (Mackie

        1976,

        Dancy

        1987).
        about

        significant

        details

        about

        how

        the

        process

        of

        abstraction

        works,

        abstraction

        does

        play

        an

        important

        role

        in

        explaining

        the

        origins

        of

        general

        representations.
        2.

        Some General Representations Are Innate
        In

        Book

        II

        of

        the

        Essay,
        Locke

        describes

        the

        process

        of

        abstraction,

        claiming

        that

        abstraction

        is

        the

        source

        of

        all

        of

        the

        mind’s

        general

        representations.

        According

        to

        Locke,

        abstraction

        is

        the

        power

        of

        mind

        that

        involves

        “separating

        [Ideas]

        from

        all

        other

        Ideas

        that

        accompany

        them

        in

        their

        real

        existence;

        this

        is

        called

        Abstraction
        .

        And

        thus

        all

        its

        General

        Ideas

        are

        made”

        (1690/1975,

        II,

        xii,

        §1).

        Locke

        gives

        several

        examples

        that

        are

        meant

        to

        illustrate

        the

        workings

        of

        abstraction.

        Regarding

        the

        origins

        of

        the

        general

        representation

        white,

        we

        are

        told:

        the

        same

        Colour

        being

        observed

        to

        day

        in

        Chalk

        or

        Snow,

        which

        the

        Mind

        yesterday

        received

        from

        Milk,

        it

        considers

        that

        Appearance

        alone,

        makes

        it

        representative

        of

        all

        of

        that

        kind;

        and

        having

        given

        it

        the

        name

        Whiteness
        ,
        it

        by

        that

        sound

        signifies

        the

        same

        quality

        wheresoever

        to

        be

        imagin’d

        or

        met

        with;

        and

        thus

        Universals,

        whether

        Ideas

        or

        Terms,

        are

        made.

        (II,

        xi,

        §9)
        The

        claim

        is

        that

        a

        general

        representation

        for

        a

        simple

        quality

        is

        formed

        by

        (in

        some

        sense)

        leaving

        out

        specific

        details

        about

        where

        and

        when

        it

        originated,

        as

        well

        as

        other

        ideas

        that

        may

        have

        initially

        accompanied

        it.

        Later,

        in

        Book

        III,

        Locke

        discusses

        a

        different

        kind

        of

        example

        the

        formation

        of

        a

        complex

        idea.

        He

        suggests

        that

        children

        may

        acquire

        man

        by

        first

        attending

        to

        particular

        individuals,

        such

        as

        their

        nurse

        or

        mother,

        and

        later

        observing

        that

        other

        things

        resemble

        those

        individuals.

        This

        leads

        children

        to:

        frame

        an

        Idea
        ,

        which

        they

        find

        those

        many

        Particulars

        do

        partake

        in;

        and

        to

        that

        they

        give,

        with

        others,

        the

        name

        Man
        ,

        for

        Example.

        And

        thus they come to have a general Name
        ,
        and

        a

        general

        Idea
        .

        Wherein

        they

        make

        nothing

        new,

        but

        stephen

        laurence

        &

        eric

        margolis

        Abstraction and the Origin of General Ideas
        philosophers’

        imprint

        4


        vol.

        12
        ,

        no.

        19

        (december

        2012
        )
        that

        would

        comprise

        the

        input

        to

        the

        acquisition

        process,

        and

        it

        would

        presumably

        be

        the

        perception

        of

        its

        color

        that

        would

        support

        the

        acquisition

        of

        white
        .

        But

        then

        the

        process

        of

        acquiring

        white

        would

        depend

        upon

        prior

        representations

        that

        include,

        among

        others,

        the

        representation

        white
        .

        The

        model

        is

        plainly

        circular.

        It

        ends

        up

        saying

        that

        white

        is

        the

        product

        of

        a

        process

        that

        takes

        white

        as

        its

        input.
        E.

        J.

        Lowe

        has

        made

        a

        related

        point

        in

        a

        criticism

        of

        Lockean

        abstraction

        (Lowe

        1995,

        pp.

        161–2),

        but

        there

        is

        an

        important

        difference

        between

        Lowe’s

        criticism

        and

        our

        own.

        Lowe

        claims

        that

        abstraction

        can’t

        get

        off

        the

        ground

        if

        the

        agent

        doesn’t

        have

        a

        way

        to

        single

        out

        particulars

        in

        perception

        prior

        to

        abstraction

        taking

        place,

        and

        he

        claims

        that

        this

        requires

        being

        able

        to

        represent

        each

        particular

        under

        a

        sortal

        that

        provides

        a

        principle

        of

        individuation

        for

        things

        of

        the

        same

        type.

        Then

        the

        problem

        is

        that

        abstraction

        can’t

        account

        for

        where

        these

        sortal

        representations

        come

        from,

        since

        they

        are

        a

        necessary

        precursor

        for

        abstraction

        to

        take

        place.

        Lowe

        gives

        the

        example

        of

        seeing

        an

        animal.

        He

        says

        that

        you

        may

        not

        have

        to

        know

        what

        type

        of

        animal

        it

        is,

        but

        you

        have

        to

        at

        least

        represent

        it

        under

        the

        sortal

        animal

        in

        order

        to

        single

        it

        out

        from

        other

        objects.
        6
        We

        agree

        with

        Lowe

        that

        general

        representations

        are

        required

        to

        get

        the

        process

        of

        abstraction

        going,

        but

        not

        for

        the

        reason

        that

        he

        cites.

        The

        problem

        isn’t

        limited

        to

        sortal

        representations

        and

        isn’t

        primarily

        generated

        by

        the

        need

        to

        represent

        particulars.

        Rather,

        the

        problem

        arises

        for

        any

        of

        the

        salient

        features

        of

        a

        perceived

        object

        that,

        by

        hypothesis,

        are

        part

        of

        the

        input

        to

        the

        process

        of

        abstraction.

        Whether

        the

        representations

        of

        these

        features

        provide

        principles

        of

        individuation

        is

        irrelevant.

        Now

        we

        ourselves

        haven’t

        yet

        argued

        that

        general

        representations

        must

        figure

        in

        the

        input

        to

        the

        process.

        For

        the

        moment,

        it

        is

        simply

        an

        immediate

        consequence

        of

        the

        first

        model

        that

        we

        are

        considering

        that

        they

        do.

        Our

        own

        argument

        for

        the

        need

        for

        general

        representations

        will

        emerge

        through

        consideration

        of

        the

        6. Though

        it

        does

        not

        affect

        our

        point,

        Lowe

        wouldn’t

        put

        things

        exactly

        as

        we

        do

        in

        the

        text,

        since

        he

        is

        agnostic

        about

        mental

        representations

        and

        prefers

        to

        couch

        the

        issue

        in

        terms

        of

        representational

        abilities.

        is

        that

        abstraction

        cannot

        plausibly

        be

        the

        source

        of

        all

        general

        representations

        and

        that

        it

        is

        highly

        unlikely

        that

        any

        learning

        process

        could

        be

        the

        source

        of

        all

        general

        representations.

        If

        an

        organism

        has

        any

        general

        representations

        at

        all,

        then,

        in

        all

        likelihood,

        some

        of

        these

        must

        be

        innate.

        We

        should

        note

        at

        the

        outset

        that

        this

        argument

        is

        intended

        as

        an

        inference

        to

        the

        best

        explanation,

        not

        a

        proof.

        We

        do

        not

        claim

        that

        it

        is

        logically

        impossible

        for

        all

        general

        representations

        to

        be

        acquired

        without

        there

        being

        some

        innate

        general

        representations.

        Rather,

        our

        point

        is

        that

        non-nativist

        models

        incur

        prohibitive

        explanatory

        costs.

        Also,

        to

        simplify

        the

        discussion,

        we

        will

        suppose

        that

        the

        general

        representation

        that

        we

        are

        trying

        to

        understand

        is

        white

        and

        that

        the

        experience

        from

        which

        it

        is

        abstracted

        is

        the

        visual

        perception

        of

        a

        snowball

        (or

        a

        number

        of

        snowballs).

        We

        can

        now

        rephrase

        the

        issue

        as

        identifying

        how

        the

        snowball

        is

        initially

        represented

        so

        that

        white

        can

        be

        abstracted

        from

        the

        experience.

        There

        are

        four

        potential

        models

        to

        consider.
        Model 1: Individual-representations and feature-representations.

        The

        first

        model

        takes

        as

        input

        a

        combination

        of

        individual-representations

        (
        i.

        e
        .,

        representations

        which

        function

        like

        names

        or

        demonstratives

        and

        represent

        individuals

        qua

        individuals)

        and

        representations

        for

        each

        of

        the

        salient

        features

        of

        the

        experienced

        particular.

        Thus

        the

        snowball

        might

        initially

        be

        represented

        with

        such

        representations

        as

        that
        ,
        cold
        ,
        spherical,

        and

        solid
        .
        This

        model

        faces

        a

        number

        of

        problems,

        but

        the

        most

        serious

        is

        that

        it

        simply

        presupposes

        that

        the

        process

        of

        abstraction

        takes

        as

        input

        general

        representations
        .
        5

        This

        clearly

        won’t

        do

        if

        the

        goal

        is

        for

        abstraction

        to

        explain

        the

        acquisition

        of

        all

        general

        representations,

        as

        the

        appeal

        to

        prior

        general

        representations

        will

        lead

        to

        a

        regress.

        Moreover,

        color

        will

        undoubtedly

        be

        among

        the

        salient

        general

        features

        of

        the

        snowball

        5. The

        representations

        of

        shape,

        temperature,

        etc.

        in

        the

        input

        might

        be

        noncon

        ceptual

        representations,

        as

        opposed

        to

        conceptual

        ones.

        But

        they

        would

        be

        general

        representations

        all

        the

        same.

        stephen

        laurence

        &

        eric

        margolis

        Abstraction and the Origin of General Ideas
        philosophers’

        imprint

        5


        vol.

        12
        ,

        no.

        19

        (december

        2012
        )
        individual

        objects

        as

        such,

        the

        agent

        is

        effectively

        representationally

        cut

        off

        from

        all

        the

        features

        of

        the

        objects.
        Suppose,

        however,

        that

        we

        overlook

        the

        question

        of

        why

        different

        individual-representations

        are

        grouped

        together

        and

        simply

        allow

        that

        they

        are.

        Then

        a

        number

        of

        individual-representations

        could

        be

        combined,

        yielding

        a

        representation

        like

        this

        and

        this

        and

        this

        (each


        this

        referring

        to

        one

        of

        three

        different

        white

        snowballs).

        Still,

        the

        resulting

        representation

        wouldn’t

        do,

        since

        (1)

        it

        lacks

        the

        representational

        breadth

        of

        white

        (
        white

        is

        projectible,

        whereas

        the

        conjoined

        individual

        representations

        only

        pick

        out

        the

        particulars

        that

        have

        been

        encountered)

        and

        (2)

        it

        fails

        to

        single

        out

        the

        relevant

        feature

        that

        these

        objects

        have

        in

        common

        (whiteness,

        as

        opposed

        to,

        for

        example,

        sphericality,

        coldness,

        snowballness,

        etc.).

        It’s

        one

        thing

        to

        represent

        a

        number

        of

        perceived

        objects

        that

        happen

        to

        be

        white

        and

        quite

        another

        to

        represent

        whiteness

        (or

        to

        represent

        white

        things

        in

        general).

        No

        finite

        conjunction

        of

        individual-representations

        of

        white

        things

        would

        constitute

        a

        general

        representation

        of

        whiteness.
        Model 3: Trope-representations.
        We

        are

        asking

        what

        the

        input

        to

        the

        process

        of

        abstraction

        might

        look

        like

        on

        the

        Lockean

        assumption

        that

        abstraction

        is

        the

        source

        of

        all

        general

        representations.

        A

        third

        possibility,

        which

        is

        seen

        in

        the

        work

        of

        Thomas

        Reid,

        is

        that

        it

        is

        particularized

        properties

        or

        abstract

        individuals,

        also

        known

        as

        tropes,

        that

        the

        input

        representations

        represent

        as

        such.
        7

        A

        trope

        is

        property-like

        in

        that

        it

        constitutes

        a

        feature

        of

        a

        particular,

        but

        unlike

        7. Reid

        remarks

        that

        “the

        whiteness

        of

        the

        sheet

        of

        paper

        upon

        which

        I

        write

        cannot

        be

        the

        whiteness

        of

        another

        sheet,

        though

        both

        are

        called

        white”,

        and

        he

        goes

        on

        to

        add

        that

        “the

        whiteness

        of

        this

        sheet

        is

        one

        thing,

        whiteness

        another”

        (Reid

        1785/2002,

        p.

        367).

        For

        Reid,

        there

        is

        no

        such

        thing

        as

        the

        universal

        whiteness
        .

        There

        are

        only

        the

        individual

        color

        tropes

        that

        are

        in

        herent

        in

        each

        piece

        of

        paper,

        each

        snowball,

        etc.

        Still,

        the

        appearance

        of

        generality

        and

        the

        prevalence

        of

        general

        terms

        in

        natural

        language

        are

        both

        to

        be

        explained

        by

        reference

        to

        “general

        conceptions”.

        Though

        Reid’s

        general

        conceptions

        are

        very

        different

        from

        Locke’s

        general

        ideas,

        and

        Reid

        himself

        was

        a

        trenchant

        critic

        of

        Lockean

        ideas,

        our

        criticisms

        of

        the

        trope

        view

        do

        not

        presuppose

        that

        general

        representations

        are

        akin

        to

        Lockean

        ideas

        and

        apply

        equally

        to

        Reid’s

        general

        conceptions.

        various

        options

        regarding

        the

        input

        and

        through

        highlighting

        the

        necessity

        of

        explaining

        how

        learners

        can

        selectively

        attend

        to

        features

        of

        stimuli.

        But

        even

        then

        there

        is

        no

        reason

        to

        suppose

        with

        Lowe

        that

        sortals

        are

        required

        to

        isolate

        objects

        for

        further

        attention.

        There

        is

        good

        empirical

        evidence

        for

        a

        mechanism

        of

        visual

        attention

        that

        is

        able

        to

        track

        objects

        by

        focusing

        on

        their

        spatial-temporal

        features,

        not

        their

        kind-individuating

        features,

        and

        that

        this

        mechanism

        is

        present

        early

        in

        cognitive

        development

        (Scholl

        2001).

        So

        while

        we’ll

        see

        that

        Lowe

        is

        right

        to

        question

        whether

        abstraction

        can

        account

        for

        all

        general

        representations,

        his

        focus

        on

        sortals

        is

        too

        restrictive.

        The

        fundamental

        problem

        is

        just

        that

        the

        individual-representations-
        and-feature-representations

        model

        assumes

        that

        there

        are

        features

        of

        a

        particular

        that

        initially

        need

        to

        be

        represented

        as

        such;

        whatever

        these

        features

        are,

        the

        representations

        of

        these

        features

        cannot

        themselves

        be

        acquired

        via

        abstraction

        on

        this

        model.
        Model 2: Individual-representations only.

        In

        order

        to

        address

        the

        problem

        with

        the

        previous

        model,

        one

        might

        suppose

        instead

        that

        particulars

        are

        initially

        represented

        only

        by

        individual-representations

        without

        any

        general

        representations

        coming

        into

        it

        until

        abstraction

        has

        taken

        place.
        We

        don’t

        know

        of

        any

        traditional

        empiricists

        who

        have

        proposed

        a

        model

        of

        this

        kind,

        however,

        and

        for

        good

        reason.

        Individual-
        representations

        alone

        don’t

        provide

        enough

        information

        to

        get

        the

        process

        of

        abstraction

        going.

        If

        particulars

        are

        represented

        simply

        as

        objects,

        without

        representing

        any

        of

        their

        features,

        then

        the

        input

        just

        isn’t

        rich

        enough.

        After

        all,

        with

        the

        canonical

        individual-
        representations

        demonstratives

        the

        whole

        idea

        is

        that

        they

        represent

        their

        referents

        directly,

        conveying

        no

        information

        about

        what

        the

        represented

        objects

        are

        like.

        But

        if

        all

        the

        mind

        has

        to

        go

        on

        in

        representing

        two

        white

        objects

        is

        this

        and

        that
        ,

        it

        would

        have

        no

        basis

        for

        cognitively

        grouping

        the

        two

        together,

        and

        certainly

        no

        basis

        for

        bringing

        them

        under

        a

        specific

        general

        representation

        such

        as

        white
        .

        By

        limiting

        the

        initial

        representations

        to

        representations

        of

        the

      • Mr. Frazier

        HOLY SHIT clicking see more on this was a big mistake.. I smoked half a joint scrolling thru this for real..

  • Pingback: quit smoking()

  • Lisa Styve

    Gives one omething to condider! Great ,new ,information!

  • FBI_Informant

    i guess nobody noticed that theres 7 pictures instead of the 6

    • Anonymous

      Haha yeah, the creator of these emailed me a new one a couple months ago so I added it.

  • Pingback: ebooks()

  • Phoenixalima

    People only write hateful things about marijuana b/c they’ve never tried it before & so they are miserable…& misery loves company. Light up & be happy.

  • flowerbomb

    i love weed 

  • Pingback: Angry Birds Free Download | Angry Birds Free Download for Windows 7()

  • Liltbell

    Um scumkiller u r dumb u basically said u thought u deserved to die since u think all violent people should die and u r clearly showing a want to be violent also um pot smoker generally r the opposite of violent theyd rather hug u and share a joint then harm u in addition it is my opinion that u r very stupid ignorant and mean hearted i hope noone ever speak such hate or comits such cruelness to u as I’m sure u have to others

  • Pingback: 90 е годы()

  • -Hawke-

    Think of it this way, if the government were to legalize it and put a $10 a pack tax on it… Now, let the growers sell it for $20 a pack. This would make the total price $30 and the pot smokers would still be getting a good deal as they would get more than $30 gets them now.

    Now, back to the tax part. If only 1 million people across our great nation smoked 1 pack a week that would mean that the government would take in 10 million dollars a week x 52 weeks in the year = 520 million dollars a year in revenue that could be put straight towards the national debt.

    Now you know as well as I do that the 1 million pot smokers across the country is a very very low estimate. Our country could wipe out it’s national debt in record time and be beholding to NO ONE!

    Plus the fact that sales in bakeries and other comfort foods would spike like nobody’s business. Maybe now you see that it would indeed be a boon to the country.

    If you’re worried that people will get on the roads and cause accidents, well they’ve been on the roads for years and the accident rates for people on Marijuana are far lower than the rates for people who’ve been drinking.

    Now you may say to yourself that this guy is highly rational and puts forth a damn good argument for the legalization of Marijuana. Well guess what, I’ve been a pot smoker for over 30 years and have 3 College Degrees, 1 in factory automation and 2 in the Computer Sciences.

    How many of you who are against the legalization of Marijuana can say the same??

    • 42O

      thats a “damn good argument ?”

      I smoked two blunts to my face this morning and i could come up with a better opening & closing that that Mr. Gates . possibly go back for another degree , you did not lean enough the first time .

    • http://www.facebook.com/greg.seth.56 Greg Seth

      so… you spent a lot of time in community college and still can’t come up with an articulate, logical argument?

  • jeffjones@yahoo.com

    well every video ive shown say that statistics show blah blah blah but never is oproved by the FDA the only thing that is actually proven is that your brain works harder when you are high marijuana can have long term effects on teens because there brains are still developing but even then you would have to be an every day user for the effects to even be minnor THC dosent kill brain cells itself but smoking it and especilly holding in hits for a long period of time cuts of oxgen to your brain thous killing numerus braincells every second smoke off of any substance has what is called cancer causing chemicals but i use that term loosley cause anything causes cancer these days yes marijuana is reported to be less harmful to your lungs then cigerretes but the idea is to take big hithits and hold them in to get the desired effect in doing so it makes marijuana just as harmful as cigerretes or worse alcohol dose in fact kill braincells and is bad for your kidney and liver and honestly i have no idea why it is even legal they say you are impaired under the influence of drugs and acohol in some cases this may be true but have you ever lost control blacked out or couldent remember what happed when you were high? dont get me wrong you may do somthing stupid on marajuana but its usally somthing you would do sober or thought about doing anyway many people have woke up next to a stranger or wake up in jail cause they were but naked in public some even lose there virginity have sex with same gender and some even get raped acohol and drivin is the number one cause of death not in the united states but around the globe you may see crashes from pple that were high but its probally cause they wernt a good driver in the first place legalization would probally help in many ways for example i know many minors that drink just because its popular if weed was legal maybey ppl would stop drinking and ppl would sit around laugh and reminice and as an experianced user most likaly ppl would stay in there homes thous promoting that it would infact reduce vilence and crime wich would also make room for ppl that do actual crimes like killing and steeling and im sorry but having fun should not be illigal now it wouldent be bad to have a limit to how much you use because addiction is a problem in this world but any one that has ever used marijuana knows that it opens up cretivity in the mind some of the best things in the world created while high im fifteen years old and ive been to impateint and outpatient numorous for drugs and addiction but marijuana is the least of the goverments problem right now so just legalize it so stupid ppl like me will shut up and so ppl around the world can descover a happiness they didnt know they had

    • R M

      That is all two sentences.  Please learn to use punctuation — it allows people to understand you, without burning out brain cells trying to make sense of that random stream of words.

    • RG

      You clearly haven’t learned yet that our brain forms new braincells throughout our lives…. so yeah…. your argument is moot.

    • http://justlooklikefrog.wordpress.com/ Warren Levine

      Jeff, take some advice from an old man who’s been puff’n since before we kicked Nixxon’s corrupt ass out of office. 

      1. STAY IN SCHOOL! Your English usage is pitiful, your spelling and punctuation are not even close to high-school level. Unless you’re in Alabama or Mississippi. You’re going to have a tough time in life if you can’t express yourself properly in your own native language. If you put your comment into Google Translate, it would probably blue-screen and give you a memory stacking error. Seriously, kid. Learn to write.

      2. WTF are you doing smoking tree at 15 years old??? You’re not killing brain cells, you’re not killing your lungs, but you ARE making all kinds of stoned, hormone-enhanced teenage choices that will affect you for the rest of your life. Don’t be a schmuck. Smoke on Saturdays, so you’ll be able to do your weekend homework with a clear mind, and you won’t end up flipping burgers or cleaning bathrooms. But do not smoke tree on school nights. What do your parents think about your getting high at 15?

      3. If you check this page, you’ll see what we’re doing in the State of Washington, where we already have a pretty liberal legal medical marijuana law – RCW 69.51, but we’re trying to make it SAFE and legal, accent on SAFE: http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/06/wa_heres_a_way_to_collect_legalization_signatures.php

      I’m not reprimanding you — I don’t know you, you’re not my kid, and aside from the fact that you’re another living human being I don’t care what you do personally, as long as it doesn’t affect my life. But you don’t want to screw up yours before you’re even old enough to know what life’s about.

      Now, please STFU and GTYR. =)

    • Cpt Oblivious

      tl;dr

    • http://www.facebook.com/greg.seth.56 Greg Seth

      Holy shit, there isn’t one period in that whole rant. That was an illiterate train wreck.

  • Pingback: Source 3 von Rhetorical Analysis « egke222()

  • Pingback: Your-Demand.in | Indias Best Classified Site()

  • Pingback: webdevelopment()

  • Less_than_sacred

    “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Trommy-Themulus/100001064367238 Trommy Themulus

    I was talking to a fairly well educated person about Cannabis the other day.  His take on Cannabis sounded like the governments.  I mentioned a few facts about how much the governments war cost us and how many people are arrested every year and have their lives ruined.  He was parroting the government ads about how dangerous it was.  I told him there have been zero deaths due to cannabis and that even aspirin didn’t have that kind of record.  He said that people who smoke cannabis don’t have ambition.  I mentioned that the current president and a couple of other presidents were users not to mention people like Carl Sagan, Steve Jobs and many many other people who changed the world have used Cannabis. 

    He thought about what I had said and He came up with, well I know of people who use it and they don’t work.  I told him I know people who don’t work for whatever reason and they don’t use cannabis.  I mentioned that I also know people who smoke who are lawyers, doctors and engineers.   I went on to tell him about how Harry Anslinger needed a new prohibition and was in bed with Hearst and Dupont to outlaw Hemp for their own selfish reasons.  How He used blatant disgusting racism and propaganda to get his way.  He could not believe it but said he would read up on it.

    Take some time to educate people on the facts even those that you think are smart enough to sift through the lies.  That is how we will win the war, by educating others.  We are reaching a crucial balancing point for legalization and when people know the truth they realize the government propaganda has all been a lie.  These posters are great!

  • Jamtech
  • Pingback: inboxblueprint2.net()

  • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Medical-Marijuana-Store/464136533719431 Best Weed

    **********************Medical Marijuana Available FOR SALE Cure -( Cancer, back pain, sleeping, stress , appetite etc Top strains available.For sell . INDICA and SATIVA . all strains are available . *Green Crack: Grade: AA *sour Diesel :::Grade: A+ Top Shelf *Grand Daddy Purple ::::Grade: A *Sensi Star x ak47 :Grade: AAA *Afghan Kush :Grade: A *Northern Lights #5 Grade: A+ *Lemon drop:::Grade: A+ *Purple Kush:::Grade:A+ Top Shelf *OG Kush Grade:A++ Top Shelf *purple-urkle::Grade: A- *Sour diesel * E.T.C. CONTACT :(weed.man4real@gmail.com) If interested OR (*SKYPE ME AT: weed.man63)
    ************************************************************************************

  • http://buyweedsonline.com/ Thomas Braun

    As a long term patient of Fibromyalgia, all I can say is, that medical marijuana gives me much more relief of my pain, than all the medicaments I have to take on a daily basis.
    For more than 10 months now, I am using the reliable MOM service from http://www.buyweedsonline.com

    Some might be reluctant to believe, that Mail Order Marijuana works, but it does. I am glad to see, that sites, as yours, gives a lot of information for people same as me. thank you all and stay healthy at all times.

  • MarijuanaHouse

    Quality medical marijuana strains for all.
    text (307) 215-1906 or email macedward111@gmail.com

    (1)- Strains Indicas:Blueberry yum yum ,GDP,Bubba Kush,Purple Kush,Northern Lights,Blackberry Kush,Afghan Kush,Grape Ape,Cheese,
    ======
    (2)- Strains Sativas: Sour Diesel,Green Crack, Jack Herer,Alaskan Thunder Fuck,Super Silver
    Haze,Durban Poison,Maui Waui,Lemon Haze and Girls Scout Cookies, Etc.
    ======
    (3)-Strains Hybrids : Blue Dream,White Widow,OG Kush, AK-47,Trainwreck,Headband,Blue Cheese and Lime Haze,Etc .Grown Indoor..

Powered by WordPress | Thanks to Wordpress Themes