It's a satire of the "better living through chemistry" campaign, and the fact that commenters are even spouting the terms 'luddite' or saying "chemicals are just inorganic materials", and having undying faith in the dictums from mouths of "experts" in the "scientific community" shows just how big you opened wide at being propagandized into this crap. Do you see how big a sham unquestioning trust in "scientific fact" is?? What the potential and actual consequences even so far of it has been when the mass of people don't question it?
probation=emmigration2/21/2007
especaily the psycedelic kind other than that there mostly a waste like anti deppressants that cause heart attacks anurisms diareaha cramps blindness clots liver problems seisures and may cause suicide
a.oran.6/27/2006
I think you guys are taking it slightly too seriously. It's just satiring all the bullshit comercials about how great pharmapseudicals are for you..thats what I thought anyways.
You guys should listen to "A word" by Mark Bruback. It's on the Harum Scarum album "Mental Health." If any one knows where to get other stuff by him, please tell!
skizzle-wizzle4/11/2006
This patch always made me think of nuclear waste, anti-depressants, and LSD.
M. Butterfly1/20/2006
Chemicals are just inorganic materials (lacking Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, or Nitrogen). They exist in nature. A lot of bacteria use chemicals to create energy. We just can't consume chemicals because our bodies aren't equipped with such decomposing agents. Maybe they mean...synthesized chemicals? I find nothing wrong with the forward movement of technology. Using subjects to test these said "chemicals" for the sake of technology, however, is what is wrong.
Rev. Uncle Neil Banana Head8/22/2005
This is a bit too ludditistic for my tastes. I mean certainly, there are valid reasons to be suspicious of (and even fearful of) chemicals, but does it merit a general denunciation of them? I mean, how many people in here use rubbing alcohol on their cuts, or clean their clothing with detergents? Getting on a 'anti-technology high horse' won't ultimately solve our problems. Rather, it's modifying the present relations of production that will "make our lives better" but only I don't mean that sarcastically, I mean it in earnest.
Comments & Reviews
It's a satire of the "better living through chemistry" campaign, and the fact that commenters are even spouting the terms 'luddite' or saying "chemicals are just inorganic materials", and having undying faith in the dictums from mouths of "experts" in the "scientific community" shows just how big you opened wide at being propagandized into this crap. Do you see how big a sham unquestioning trust in "scientific fact" is?? What the potential and actual consequences even so far of it has been when the mass of people don't question it?
especaily the psycedelic kind other than that there mostly a waste like anti deppressants that cause heart attacks anurisms diareaha cramps blindness clots liver problems seisures and may cause suicide
I think you guys are taking it slightly too seriously. It's just satiring all the bullshit comercials about how great pharmapseudicals are for you..thats what I thought anyways.
You guys should listen to "A word" by Mark Bruback. It's on the Harum Scarum album "Mental Health." If any one knows where to get other stuff by him, please tell!
This patch always made me think of nuclear waste, anti-depressants, and LSD.
Chemicals are just inorganic materials (lacking Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, or Nitrogen). They exist in nature. A lot of bacteria use chemicals to create energy. We just can't consume chemicals because our bodies aren't equipped with such decomposing agents. Maybe they mean...synthesized chemicals? I find nothing wrong with the forward movement of technology. Using subjects to test these said "chemicals" for the sake of technology, however, is what is wrong.
This is a bit too ludditistic for my tastes. I mean certainly, there are valid reasons to be suspicious of (and even fearful of) chemicals, but does it merit a general denunciation of them? I mean, how many people in here use rubbing alcohol on their cuts, or clean their clothing with detergents? Getting on a 'anti-technology high horse' won't ultimately solve our problems. Rather, it's modifying the present relations of production that will "make our lives better" but only I don't mean that sarcastically, I mean it in earnest.