Some people do achieve noteworthy success without chemicals. Stephen Kings is a prolific writer. Imagine what he might have accomplished had he been drug free. Maybe not as much quantity or quality or maybe more of both. As for looking frail, he is 73 years old and likely not a very physical person. No doubt the injuries from the accident haven't helped either, no would the drugs I imagine.
Great post. I agree. You pose an interesting question about what Stephen King's work would have been like had he not spent the 1980's high as a kite.
But here's something I believe you and your fellow Duke of Dementia-supporting [Democrat] Getbiggers don't get. First, some definitions:
Parsh = Partial Erection.
Dome = Condom.
I don't wear a mask for this COVID hysteria, as you know, and I have a trespass warrant at one [soon-to-be bankrupt and bought by Amazon] Canadian bookstore as a result.
So you might think - it's Trumptards like me causing the spread of COVID. Ah yes - I'm spreading a disease I never had. That makes a whole lot of sense.
But have you considered that maybe I treat masks the same way I treat domes? I NEVER wear a dome while having sex, and I've never known a woman to ask, and even the few [as in, maybe like three, total] who did, didn't put up any fight when I said "No condom or no sex. You pick."
Anyway, I don't wear a dome during sex because I don't much care to wrap my dick in a ziplock bag. I wouldn't know [since I never wear domes], but my suspicion is that I wouldn't even be able to get a parsh if I was made to wear a dome.
You might say, that's irresponsible, and bad for public health, right?
Wrong.
As I said, my policy is "No condom or no sex."
Often, for me, that just means no sex. I probably average sex 10 times a year, and that's plenty for me. I could ramp that up a bit, but I don't want to, and since I'm shagging women without a dome, I wouldn't want to be a risk to public health.
LIKEWISE WITH MASKS:
I may not be wearing masks, but I'm responsible in other ways, and with everything being so hysterical lately, I've been spending most of my time inside anyway. So you think you're doing more for public health by going out with a flimsy paper mask, exposing yourself to far more people than I am, while I am staying home, seldom going out, but never wearing a mask when I do.
If you were to measure which one of these strategies is more responsible for the spread of money, I would bet any money that your Democrat/leftist way is much worse than my Trumptard way.
And that's ultimately my issue with Democrats: you think you are the arbiter of moral values, when in reality, many of the virtue-signaling things you do are actually WORSE for the world. Example:
^ See? Recycling wasn't just useless - it was worse than useless. Yet you've been doing it all along like a good little Duke of Dementia voter, whereas I've only been recycling aluminum cans, while understanding that the only way to reduce our carbon footprint as human beings is to reduce and reuse.
So who had the worse impact on the environment? Me, who knew recycling doesn't work, but reduced and reused, or you, who felt that recycling meant you could consume as much as you want, since your net environmental impact would be neutral?
Hmm...?
Rhetorical question - left-wing ideas = left-wing results. Despite you thinking you were doing the environment a solid, all of your plastic waste was being dumped into rivers and ultimately into the pacific ocean, whereas I made it a point to consume as little as possible.
So you see, Prime - you and I both share the same concerns...ethically, environmentally, economically - in all ways. It just so happens that I have adopted a moral framework that is both economically and environmentally more efficient than yours. Yours just sounds nicer "on paper" or "in theory", but in reality, leftist ideas fail time and time again.
Hey - the more you know, right?
