Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion Can you believe this shit?

So you admit you spent no time researching it, but you have absolutely no problems assuming there is no "hard science" to support my argument, again when you admittedly did not research it.

AMERICAAAAAA, FUCK YAAA


Who do you do research for, for a living? Fox news & Cnn?

Ok Rain have it your way. I didn't want to seriously engage in this argument with you because 1) I suspect your just trolling, 2) I really don't give a fuck at all if you are persuaded by my argument or not and 3) Even if I "win" you and all the other hippie potheads on this forum will still live in your denial that pot could ever lead people to try harder drugs.

That said, I suppose I'll shit all over your half-assed argument if it makes you feel better.

First, you still DO NOT PROVIDE ANY FACTS OR EVIDENCE that refute or disprove the THEORY of the gateway drug. Your initial response was to direct me to this link:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=marijuana+gateway+effect&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10&as_vis=1

Wow way to go doctor Rainman, a list of articles from Google. That does absolutely nothing to support your argument whatsoever. The vast majority of those articles aren't even on topic. So you throw out a link to a 100 artciles and think that proves your point? Clearly you're also an American.

Let's examine just one of the articles contained in that shitty list. It's titled "The dynamics of alcohol and marijuana initiation: patterns and predictors of first use in adolescence"

The link for this article is here: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/3/360

First, this article isn't even on topic. I only use it as an example because 1) It was one of the first few in the list 2) You're not going to shift the burden of your shitty argument back to me by making me search through tons of articles to find one that supports it, and 3) It's a glaring example of why you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The problems with this article that I found after 3 minutes of reading it were as follows:

1. The study was done by: R Kosterman, JD Hawkins, J Guo, RF Catalano and RD Abbott. Notice there are no PhD's by any of their names? Yea that's a problem.

2. They studied 808 youth. Yea that's a fucking problem too. That sample size is WAYYYY too small. Accurate statistical data requires very large samples.

3. This is a quote from the article, "This study, guided by the social development model, examined the dynamic patterns and predictors of alcohol and marijuana use onset." and so is this, "...808 youth interviewed..."

The problem with number 3 above is twofold.

First off, as I already told you, and you HAVE CONTINUED TO DODGE, they are ATTEMPTING to use the scientific method to anaylyze a "SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT" issue. You simply cannot disprove soft science theories in sociology and psychology WITH SCIENTIFIC DATA. The human mind and it's complex interworkings and social behavior cannot completely be explained with science.

Second, THEY INTERVIEWED the subjects. I guarantee you that any study that's done on whether pot is or is not a gateway drug is dependant upon interviewing people. Well guess what smartbox? PEOPLE LIE. Any study conducted which is reliant upon interviewing of individuals is suspect at its inception for this very reason.

When I call you on your bullshit and tell you that you cannot disprove it because it's not a hard science, you refute by trying to spin the scenario and say that stupid shit I quoted above. Yes I admit that until now I didn't spend even 60 seconds researching whethere or not you are right about the gateway drug theory being debunked. You seem to be insinuating that there is "hard science" to support your argument, yet the best you can do is link me to a list of 8978478974894 semi maybe possibly in the general realm of on topic articles on google and throw out a couple of insults.

WEAK.

If you seriously want to put forth some effort to prove your argument, then I will too.

But I'm not going to waste anymore time on this horseshit if you're just going to link lists of articles and keep dodging my points.

Come back when you've fully researched the issue. There are plenty of federally funded research papers that say exactly what you want them to say. If you researched the issue slightly more you could have tried to throw those in my face. However, there are about 70ish legitimate studies in total about the issue and you've only hit one. You're not an expert yet! You are just displaying your great MSNBC researching skills here. Get back to work!

Why was my google search link not good enough source for you (a link to research your own sources), but you have no problem making an uninvestigated claim based off hearsay in the second sentence of your last post.

Who do you do research for again? I'm curious.

Your points are blatant misunderstandings of science, how am I suppose to address that? I don't think I am capable. I believe you need a tutor or night classes.



I don't know how to address this other than you have a misunderstanding of what science even is. Saying "ANYTHING" cannot be explained with science is a fundamental misunderstanding so great that I can't help you.



Saying that you can not disprove soft science theories with scientific data because you can not get an outcome that is 99% accurate like natural science is a continuation of what I said above. Science does not create absolute knowledge, but saying that you must dismiss all studies because it is "soft science" is ridiculous.

The study of Cannabis Gate Effect is only a soft science if what I say is correct. That it is your social environment that causes the gateway effect. The ONLY way you can be correct is if you completely disregard everything you just said about 'soft science', because the gateway effect in your theory would be entirely Natural Science. Not psychological and not sociological. Really ironic, not sure if you were going for some kind of double reverse troll job, but you failed on a couple levels.

Just by saying that the gateway effect is psychological or sociological completely destroys your argument. You killed your own argument. Just think about it for a minute.

We know how cannabinoid and cannabinoid receptors work. Here's a video. Saying we can't perform scientific studies on cannabis gateway effect with our level of technology is a joke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0GMar5OlaQ&t=1m50s

HAHAHA you're too funny dude.

Let me make sure I understand your tactics here. You're going to disagree with my statement, claim that there are tons of studies that discredit the theory of gateway drugs, send me one link to a list of studies which aren't even on topic, and then tell me to go find the one that supports your contentions?

That's the most retarded fucking thing I've ever heard. If you disagree with what I said and choose to rebut it, then why don't you direct me to the specific articles that support what you say? If you were in a college debate, would you show up with a pile of papers 3 feet tall and tell your opposition, somewhere in here is proof that I'm right. Find it and get back to when you do.

Did you graduate high school? Did you even go to college?

The 2nd sentence of my last post stated to you the reasons why I didn't want to engage in some long drawn out argument with you about this. How's that hearsay?

I have no interest in fully researching the issue. I told you that several posts ago. I really don't give a fuck about it that much. If you want to engage in serious debate with me, then provide me sources that support your contentions that the gateway drug theory is bunk. I will then attempt to find sources that refute your claims. That's how arguments work bro. You were the one who took issue with what I said and claimed it was incorrect. Then prove it?



No they aren't actually. Let me dumb it down for you so you can understand it.

A hard science would be like math or chemistry. 2 + 2 ALWAYS equals 4. That can be proven and nobody could ever disprove it. When one hydrogen atom bonds with one chloride atome, it ALWAYS forms HCl, or hydrochloric acid. This can be proven through experimentation and nobody could ever disprove it because the result will always be the same. In hard sciences, there is ALWAYS a right answer. The rest are wrong answers.

Sociology and psychology are soft sciences. Sociologists and psychologists (the scientists of these fields) study human behavior. Human behavior cannot be fully explained through experimentation, observing, etc. 2 + 2 does NOT always equal 4 in these fields so to speak. People behave differently in similar situations for any number of a million reasons. To make it even more confusing, the way someone behaves in a given situation one day may be totally different than how they would behave in the exact same situation 2 days later. This is the mystery of human behavior. In soft sciences, there are no 100% right answers, or possibly many right answers.



Way to read my quote how you want to read it. You are twisting my words. Let me correct you. I said, "...behavior cannot completely be explained with science."

COMPLETELY was the operative word there genius. Science, observation and study can HELP YOU TRY TO UNDERSTAND human behavior. It can never fully explain it though for reasons stated above.



When did I EVER say this in any of my posts??? I never said we should dismiss any studies because YOU DIDN'T FUCKING PROVIDE ANY REMEMBER?? You told me to go find the studies. I never said anything about dismissing any studies so what the fuck are you talking about?

The point I was making was that regardless of what any study says that supports either side, yours or mine, at the end of the day THEY ARE ONLY THEORIES. There is no LAW of human behavior. You cannot disprove a theory because it's only a theory.



See above genius. This entire argument is based on WHY people choose to try drugs harder than marijuana. The gateway drug THEORY makes asssertions on this topic. It's just a theory.

I'm really done going round and round with you on this Rainman. All you've done to date is link a list slightly relevant articles, throw insults and twist my words. Now I see why you keep throwing out things like MSNBC and CNN, because you act just like a reporter, misquoting people and twisting their words to fit whatever spin you choose to put on something.

Just as I predicted, this got us absolutely nowhere, but it ate up 30 minutes of my time.

So...if you don't have anything of substance to add to the discussion then fuck off?

I'll throw you cross heals in UO any time, but I'm done engaging in a pointless fucking argument with you.

*Edit to above, I typed too fast.

I said, "You cannot disprove a theory because it's only a theory."

What I meant to say was you cannot disprove a theory with another theory because they are both only theories.

I would love to actually debate the substance of our argument, but I can't do that with you when you don't understand the basic principles of science. There is no point for me to even begin a debate when everything I am going to argue comes from scientific research and everything you are going to argue comes from hearsay and personal experience. My first reply was testing you to see if you were capable of research and intelligent argument. You failed, I never planned on going forward with anything else from there. I'll save my breath for people who know what design of experiment basics are.

You don't even know how to form a theory, and I'm not even sure you understand the basic principles of scientific theory.

How am I suppose to debate with somebody who says, "you cannot disprove a theory with another theory because they are both only theories". Seriously?

Everything you have said in all your posts about almost everything science related is wrong. Do not pass go, you collect nothing, we are all dumber for reading this entire thread. May god have mercy on your soul.

Blah blah blah, more insults, quote from a movie (Happy Gilmore).

Nothing of substance. Again.

If you've got something worthwhile to say, say it. If you want to prove your point via some sort of study do it. I'll attempt to counter with a study that refutes it. I told you this already.

Otherwise, you're once again just typing a whole bunch of words that still equals out to you not substantiating your point with anything of value at all.

You started it Rain. I'm 100% challenging you to actually back up your statements. You keep ducking me.

Bravo sir, well done!

Im going to go with a fuck you rainman

I'm too lazy to argue with you so Ima go smoke now..

oh & to default I'll follow with 'uragay'

i never make my bed and i lose money smoking weed...that's what we are talking about right?

I only smoke now but have done shrooms several times. I think having a beer or smoking a bowl is similar where you can get a nice buzz and relax. Tolerance is another issue. Early smokers get really high and out of control. I used to be crazy and do weird ass shit. Now that I can handle it it is much more relaxing and I can operate during the day fine if needs be. Early drinkers get super fucked up too and then you build a tolerance to it and learn to control it better or moderate if you have to. I would say almost everyone learns to be calm after smoking where getting drunk will always happen if you keep drinking and result in usually bad things. (Fatties for example) I have never met someone who was too high and ran down the street naked yelling while holding a joint. I feel most people havent smoked enough to truly understand. EE for example...sorry EE hate to rip on ya...said it was picture book or something where he was just here, there, another spot...basically super fucking baked. NOOB! It's just hard to listen to people talk about weed when they really dont know what they are talking about. I dont start talking about NASCAR like I have been watching it for 10 years. All I know is that those fuckers go left so it is stupid.

I still like you guys...except Fly.