Ss_J9_Goten
-
Posts
382 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Ss_J9_Goten
-
-
Except they didn't catch him taking drugs. Which is besides the point anyway, since it's none of their business.
-
You don't have to trust Wikipedia, but you can certainly follow the links they so conveniently provide.
Everything has the potential to be abused. Would you outlaw petrol? Quite a few people abuse petrol by sniffing it.
What business do you have telling people what they can and can't do to their own body? You have no business "saving people from themselves", because it's their life, not yours.
Opiate's are physically addictive. Marijuana is not. So no, it's not just trading one addiction for another. Marijuana is only addictive in the same way that video games are addictive (and they can be abused, so you'd better ban them quick!)
And ahahahahahahahahaha. I think you missed the point of this...
You may have seen people become "junkies", and you can spout that personal experience crap, but everyone I know that smokes are responsible people living normal lives. But we can't both be right, eh?...my personal experience "disproves" yours, just as yours would "disprove" mine. So why don't you provide sources to back up your claims, because until then your claims have no substance.
Also, stop being such a condescending [wagon]. Those sources I provided aren't "by potheads for potheads" (did you even click the links?). And hey, while you're at it, why don't you "prove yours".
-
You may have seen people become "junkies", and you can spout that personal experience crap, but everyone I know that smokes are responsible people living normal lives. But we can't both be right, eh?
Besides which, you have no business telling people what they can and can't do to themselves. This nanny [cabbage] is really irritating and condescending.
Everything has the potential to be abused. Would you outlaw morphine? Or other painkillers, like oxycontin? Hell, just like Zierro said, even a pencil could be abused. And glue, and petrol.
Marijuana has been shown to be of some benefit in treating Alzheimers, blocking proteins "that inhibit memory and cognition" [1].
It has also been shown to reduce lung cancer tumours and inhibit the spread of said cancer. [2] Further, smoking marijuana does not increase the risk of lung cancer or chronic pulmonary obstructive disorder (although when smoked with tobacco the risk of COPD is tripled over smoking tobacco alone).[3][4]
There are more medical benefits you will read on Wikipedia since you're open-minded. And, funnily enough, marijuana has been shown to assist in the treatment of opioid dependance (links on Wikipedia).
Would you still outlaw marijuana, given these medical benefits?
-
Yeah it really sucks, no one makes good metal anymore. Maiden is still good enough for me though :)
Don't generalise metal, brilliant music is still being made, music has simply progressed.
Progressed to inaudible grunting and as much distortion as possible. Show me some metal I can understand and then I'll agree with you.
I actually mean it - I'd love to hear some newer metal that isn't just grunting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=774GvRN2yKk
Also the more obvious ones like all the old bands that are still releasing music.
And this, apparently metal enough to get on metal archives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqgmgBazJ-8
In other words, you're a tool.
-
"At least they're trying" is a cop out.
It's all well and good that they want to keep the country safe, but half assed measures shouldn't be accepted just because "they're trying".
-
I'm fairly certain only the launch models are backwards compatible for PS2. I think all of them are backwards compatible for PS1, though.
-
but in my opinion "equality" does not mean that you need to make a "step up" to the level of men...thats just ridiculous. What is wrong with the "stereotype" of men being the protectors and the workers, and women being the homemakers and the caregivers?
The stereotype part; the fact that women are viewed as lower.
Correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but are you saying that the homemaker/caregiver stereotype is "lower" than the protector/breadwinner stereotype? Because if that's what you're saying, I think you missed the point of this guy's post...that women are told that their traditional role is inferior for whatever reason is [cabbage]. The traditional stereotype of women is just as important as the traditional male stereotype (someone has to take care of the kids, house etc. I'm not saying that women should do this, just that it isn't inferior to being the breadwinner).
Again, please correct me if I interpreted your post wrong.
-
The reason why pro-life people condone abortion in certain circumstances is because those circumstances are a valid reason for an abortion, like ectopic pregnancies.
Seriously, why is "all or none" so bad? Would you have killing a person in self defence illegal?
This raises the question, who defines what a "valid reason" is for getting an abortion?
Can you clarify if the second sentence is directed towards me or not...? Because I'm pretty sure I said it NEEDED to be "all or none," not that it was 'so bad.'
:???: Bad wording on my part. I meant to say, why is all or none the best option. I have no idea why I typed that.
As to your first question, the same people who decide every other condition in the law...the state.
-
Now the only sex he'll be getting is from his aggressive 600lb cellmate in whatever prison he stays in.
But on a more serious note, this is why I don't support marriages based purely on sex, and sex outside of marriage. The man threw all his concerns away -- his wife's wellbeing and preferences, his children's future, his own future -- just for sex. I don't know what the guy was thinking. Did he really think his wife would continue to sleep with him after she discovered he basically gave her a death sentence in the form of a virus? Sex-driven Idiots these days...
People who don't read these days...
"All he said [was] he was sorry. He said: 'I used needles on you because I wanted you to be the same as me so that you can live with me and you won't leave me'."Clearly not just for sex.
-
The reason why pro-life people condone abortion in certain circumstances is because those circumstances are a valid reason for an abortion, like ectopic pregnancies.
Seriously, why is "all or none" so bad? Would you have killing a person in self defence illegal?
-
I'm pretty sure you'd lose that 50.
-
Tackling too many issues at once is too resource intensive, if we start with humans, we can get better feedback from people than we would from animals, once we have done that, it will make treating animals better an easier task.
I seriously doubt it would require all of our "resources" (what do you mean by that, exactly?) to resolve human rights.
There's only so many people we can have working on it without having the ecconomy crash from nobody working.
...the economy isn't going to crash. Really, there's no realistic scenario where you'd have so many people tackling these issues that the economy would crash.
-
Fish lack a neocortex, the part of the brain that interprets pain. It's a mechanical animal by nature. Birth, development, reproduction, death. Nothing else to it.
In a 2009 paper, Janicke Nordgreen from the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Joseph Garner from Purdue University, and others, published research which concluded that goldfish do feel pain, and that their reactions to pain are much like those of humans.[20] "There has been an effort by some to argue that a fish's response to a noxious stimuli is merely a reflexive action, but that it didn't really feel pain," Garner said. "We wanted to see if fish responded to potentially painful stimuli in a reflexive way or a more clever way."[21] The fish were divided into two groups, one given morphine and the other saline. They were then subjected to unpleasant temperatures. The fish that were given saline subsequently acted with defensive behaviours, indicating anxiety, wariness and fear, whereas those given morphine did not.[21] Nordgreen said that the behavioural differences they found showed that fish feel both reflexive and cognitive pain. "The experiment shows that fish do not only respond to painful stimuli with reflexes, but change their behavior also after the event," Nordgreen said. "Together with what we know from experiments carried out by other groups, this indicates that the fish consciously perceive the test situation as painful and switch to behaviors indicative of having been through an aversive experience."[21]Links:
Even if this were not the case, the neocortex interprets pain in animals, but this study (news article, actually, but it's reporting on said study) shows that some animals without a neocortex have other parts of their brain for functions associated with the neocortex. So, no neocortex != no capacity to interpret pain.
Tackling too many issues at once is too resource intensive, if we start with humans, we can get better feedback from people than we would from animals, once we have done that, it will make treating animals better an easier task.I seriously doubt it would require all of our "resources" (what do you mean by that, exactly?) to resolve human rights.
-
Animals make other animals needlessly suffer? I don't know which Discovery Channel programs you watch, but I know for a fact that any mammal predator goes straight for the neck, and gives it such large whiplash that they prey's neck snaps and is instantly dead.
The dolphins disagree with you. Admittedly, there's no clear reason why they're doing this, but animals can be just as cruel as humans. And this is in the wild, mind you.
You've clearly missed my point, put it like this, what I'm trying to say is that we need to have proper rights for other humans before we try working for other species, it's like we need to make sure our own planet will stay livable before we make other planets stay livable.Why can't we resolve the two simultaneously?
-
Err, what? That's irrelevant to the topic since we're not discussing human rights.
-
No, it isn't a valid question. You are comparing a human to an animal, which is the whole point of the argument. I said that animals are essentially resources until they can express themselves in a way that isn't instinctive. You say needless suffering is wrong, but if we lived in the wild, grizzly bears would probably shred us without a second thought.
And I would argue that if someone thinks it makes the fish taste better then it is perfectly okay.
I'm pretty sure that grizzly bear wouldn't keep you alive just so it could laugh at you.
And how is it okay to cause pain and suffering just for your pleasure? That's sadistic.
-
I think alot of it depends on the animals ability or inability to feel pain. Mammals certainly can feel pain, but fish? Insects?
According to this, fish do feel pain.
It's an editorial, but it links to actual studies.
I'm against blatant animal cruelty, but in reality there is nothing wrong with it. Animals don't think, they act based on instinct. They are essentially organic machines.This study suggests that monkey's have a higher mental function than instinct alone. This Wikipedia page also suggests that certain species are capable of learning from external stimuli. I'm not sure if that could be extended to all, or even most animals, though. So, I think it's fair to say that some animals, at least, don't act on instinct alone.
-
So does the concept of medicinal marijuana mean nothing to you?
-
Yes, the government pays for it, but like you said, the money comes from the people, so the government isn't paying for it - they're making the people pay for it. They are simply a middle-man, if you will. Besides, couldn't they just not subsidise healthcare for self inflicted harm? They already do this to an extent by denying transplants to alcoholics, drug addicts etc. so why not make people who smoke pay for their own healthcare for smoking related illnesses?
And a bike will never be as safe as a car, even a minor collision on a bike will cause more damage than the same collision in a car, and you have absolutely no control over the actions of other road users. So it's really not a bad comparison.
And sorry for the misunderstanding, I assumed you meant all forms of smoking. But even still, I don't agree with the government making tobacco illegal - but I guess that's for another thread.
-
I know full well that on its own, it can be beneficial. What i have been saying for the last page, is that smoking it as the majority of users do, is like smoking half a cigarette, which can cause cancer.
As I said, I am ok for it being legalised as long as it is kept illegal to smoke. It's all fine and dandy saying on its own, used in the right way it is perfectly harmless, but used in the way a majority would, it can cause untold harm. It's like saying owning a knife can be fine, used in the right way for cutting food can be fine, but use it to stab somebody as it isn't.
I don't get why you bolded the half a cigarette part, as the majority rolled will have as much tobacco in as half a cigarette. You can say use vaporizers and such, but only a massive minority do, using tobacco is the easiest thing, and is the thing that will kill.
I don't see why you're saying smoking weed is bad when it's the tobacco causing the harm. Besides which, the government has no business telling people what they can and cannot do to their body; besides, that's like saying we should ban everything that can cause harm if there's a safer alternative. I mean, why do we even have motorbikes? Cars are safer!
Untold harm is very unlikely. This website has quite a few links related to the health effects of marijuana. This website (one of the ones linked in the previous link) shows that marijuana is less harmful to the lungs than cigarettes. It also shows that marijuana smokers smoke far less than tobacco smokers (an average of 3 - 4 joints a day compared to 25 cigarettes a day - so even if it is the norm to smoke half-tobacco joints (it certainly isn't where I live, but I don't dispute that it's the norm where you live), it is hardly as deadly as smoking half a cigarette, namely because weed smokers smoke far less).
It's nice and all if you want to save people from themselves, but that's not really your business. Just imagine if someone started (arbitrarily, it would seem) telling you what you could and couldn't do to your own body.
-
Mallcore is the cool way to say you're metal isn't trve.
And yeah, it's a bad thing.
-
You sound like my economics textbook :P
I don't see why you think progressive systems are as bad as flat rate systems. Unless you mean Australia's specifically, in which case I agree (somewhat).
-
How do you know the CEO worked harder? Who's to say the construction worker hasn't pulled double shifts, etc. just to get by? What if what he does is back breaking labour?
Things aren't all black and white; just because you earn more doesn't mean you earned it.
The fact of the matter is, they have earned it. Physical labor is not automatically hard work.
CEOs either worked hard in school and quickly moved through the ranks of a large company, or had a great idea and worked hard to make it real.
I think you missed my point...my point was, just because they're an "uneducated moron" doesn't mean that they haven't worked hard. Or if you want to get picky, it doesn't mean that they've worked less hard than the CEO.
And haha at the bolded part.
-
Not trying to be condescending or anything, but exactly how much do you know of economics? I'll admit I'm probably going to be talking out of my [wagon], but I'd be interested in your background.
How can you justify the poor getting taxed just as much as the rich? Why is that ideal? Exaplanations would be nice; one liners are hard to argue against.
If the poor are taxed just as much as the rich, I envision three scenarios;
1. Tax rates are lowered for the rich, so the government loses out on revenue. Government projects receive less funding; this will lead to the quality of government provided services declining, so healthcare, public education, public transport, etc. all suffer.
2. Tax rates are raised for the poor, so that the government doesn't lose any revenue (or at least very little). I'm not sure on the exact percentages of revenue are received from each tax bracket, so this'll branch out a bit.
a) The majority comes from higher earners; the poor get hit harder; if they're already struggling, well now they're screwed. imagine a lot of poor people becoming homeless, or in need of government assistance (e.g. welfare) - welfare I suppose wouldn't be too bad since essentially it'll be giving the poor some of their money back, but if they're homeless and such, the government needs to provide housing for them, etc.
B) The majority comes from lower earners; taxes won't need to be raised as much, so imagine the above scenario, but much lighter (depending on exact percentages, anyway). This is probably the best outcome.
3. Tax rates are raised for the poor, and lowered for the rich. Again, depending on which groups generate the most income for the government, this might not affect the poor too much.
Either way, this'll give the rich a break complements of the poor (unless the government bears it). I can understand that you're mad that you're paying more taxes, but why would you want to make others, who are unable to, pay for it?
Possibly buying a new computer - new question
in Tech and Computers
Posted