|
2 registered (Grow_Wizzard, wadeo),
88
Guests and
40
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
39062 Members
55 Forums
183367 Topics
1650252 Posts
Max Online: 1054 @ 07/29/08 07:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1084918 - 12/10/06 11:11 PM
Re: Scientifically illiterate politician
[Re: skitzo420]
|
Enthusiast
Registered: 10/31/06
Posts: 219
Loc: East Van
|
Personally i don't have any problems arguing with somebody who doesn't share my knowledge base -- what we learn and how we learn differs, and some people without formal education have great insights, but they are few and far apart, and usually either very old or had a hell of a life. What i do have a problem with is people who "subscribe" to a trend of thought, regardless of the letters behind their name on the business card. I might END UP in a trend, such as science, but i didn't sit down one day and say "i'm going to believe in science!" It came on its own because it made the most sense -- how knowledge is accumulated, how it's verified, reviewed, tested and re-tested before it's taken for a pragmatic truth. The other thing that raises a red flag for me is when people dismiss human nature -- i.e. assume that people are honest in their intentions. I lived under hardcore wannabe communist regime for a while, and i remember how beautiful theoretical ideas like "give people what they need, and take from them what they can give" and "socially class-free society can exist with equal cooperation of its members" turned into organized chains of corruption and struggle for power. I'll blab about how wonderful it would be to have all drugs legalized, to have all parents instill good values into their children, and to have all tax dollars go to support programs for the less fortunate. I'll run my mouth all day long. But quite honestly, that should be in the "philosophy" forum because it ain't gonna happen. If we are to sit here on this forum and argue about what should be the next big step in the legalization process, we need to look at what's realistic, not idealistic, what's proven and what's hypothesized, what's empirical and what's religious (in a broad sense of the word). Both of us are to a certain extent fans of Nietzsche -- so here's one of his from Twilight of the Idols, Maxims and Arrows: Quote:
Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man's?
_________________________
"Jesus wants to know what your favorite color is." - Antipas, post #1375498
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1084919 - 12/10/06 11:25 PM
Re: Scientifically illiterate politician
[Re: mel]
|
Veteran
Registered: 08/02/05
Posts: 1356
Loc: Vancouver, BC
|
Quote:
I know you can’t resist taking a shot at me, but think this one through. You cannot see anything wrong with the line of thought of the osmosis claim? I mean, Mel’s husband studies neuroscience = Mel couldn’t have studied the discipline herself….
?
taking a shot at you?
my take was merely that it wasn't anything to get your knickers in a twist over.
Quote:
The conclusion that has been drawn is an odd one. I was merely mentioning how Buors does not read, the proof lying in the fact that I have mentioned several times I have a husband but he still calls me a “man”.
there are men who have husbands. and honestly, i thought you were a man. your writing/forum style ... or at least some of what you wrote led me to that surmise. how is that an insult?
Quote:
But the assumption made by him on that premise is that since my husband and I study the same subject, it is obvious that I must be merely repeating whatever he tells me.
i really think you're reading too much into the situation ...
Quote:
And if one must know where I found most of my readings about addiction, they were lent to me by a professor who worked on the Rat Park research, who also taught psychopharmacology classes I took. From there I went by references.
and that's all fine -- that's valid. i doubt anyone would have a problem with that.
Quote:
Why would the quotations and analysis from my readings inevitably not be my own by the mere existence of my husband, who actually studies a different branch of neuroscience? But nothing was asked, it was simply assumed that I am putting forward my husband's material.
There is just no logic behind this conclusion, and all that is left is the eerie smell of prejudiced thinking. And your opinion is especially troubling, seeing how you are a woman yourself. How much did you learn by osmosis from a “man” in your life?
for a while there i actually thought you were a full-fledged neuroscientist, until you said that Chris was a least twice your age -- which would put you at twenty-five max. much too young for a neuroscientist ... unless they really speed things along these days.
a lot can get lost in translation in a forum setting. it happens all the time.
okay, so you get that smell. you took that comment as a sexist one, and all i was saying is that i didn't read it that way. you're obviously entitled to feel however you want to about it.
i've learned plenty from men in my life, and women, too.
Quote:
Osmosis, by the way, means that concentrations of ions will equalize across a membrane. Transposed to “learning by osmosis” this would imply that an idiot, hanging out with a bunch of smart people, will get smarter. So saying that I learned by osmosis is analogous to calling me an idiot, who is somehow saved by my husband’s intelligence. I thought this thinking went away a few decades ago… obviously not so!
... i have always thought of 'learning through osmosis' to mean something more along the lines of soaking up what was around you. i've done plenty of that in my life!
i won't dispute that sexism is rampant ... but i have seen no sign of it here.
_________________________
"In wise hands poison is medicine. In foolish hands medicine is poison."
-Casanova
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1084920 - 12/10/06 11:42 PM
Re: Scientifically illiterate politician
[Re: HappyHemper]
|
Veteran
Registered: 08/02/05
Posts: 1356
Loc: Vancouver, BC
|
Quote:
There are laws in place to prevent you from smoking pot. Your point?
Legalization won't happen overnight. Drug war is a big industry, it feeds a lot of people. Trying to legalize all drugs, even the ones with a track record of devastating side-effects and permanent consequences, is at best unrealistic in over-paranoid North America. Pot would be a good start, then, a decade or two later, mushrooms. Then other hallucinogens.
Amphetamines are legal and regulated already -- go see a doc for ADHD, he'll hook you up. So are certain opioids, even the strong ones.
What are we forgetting... Ah. Dissociative anaesthetics. Animals don't complain about out-of-body experiences, thus PCP, K, and many others are still used in veterinary practice. Legal and regulated.
DXM can be bought in cough syrop OTC, google extraction and you'll be able to do it in your kitchen. Legal and regulated.
The legalization of ALMOST all drugs happened already, you just don't like the regulation that came with it.
you can advocate for what you want, and i will advocate for autonomy.
i think we were talking about the legalization of all drugs. not the current regulations governing pharmaceuticals.
the drugs i am talking about legalizing are the ones that prohibition props up and makes more available to our children than alcohol or tobacco. the ones that don't come with a label, and from people who don't ask for ID.
_________________________
"In wise hands poison is medicine. In foolish hands medicine is poison."
-Casanova
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1084921 - 12/10/06 11:43 PM
Re: Scientifically illiterate politician
[Re: maha]
|
Enthusiast
Registered: 10/31/06
Posts: 219
Loc: East Van
|
Quote:
for a while there i actually thought you were a full-fledged neuroscientist, until you said that Chris was a least twice your age -- which would put you at twenty-five max. much too young for a neuroscientist
once again, assumptions, assumptions, assumptions...
what if she thought Chris was 60? What if she went to the university right after high school (OH MY GOD, PEOPLE DO THAT?) that would put her at a BSc by 22 and an MSc at 24-25, well into a PhD by now? What if "twice my age" was an exaggeration, simply indicating that he's a stuck up old fart? Hell, i know a few stuck up old farts at heart who are younger than I am!
I work with many talented graduate students who are very young. There is an associate professor in the department who is under 30, with a PhD and a post-doc. There are people who never get beyond a bachelor's degree but work in research labs since their first year in the university whose knowledge of the area blows the doors off freshly-admitted PhD students.
Don't make assumptions, especially about age and knowledge. Look at the discourse, not appearance.
So Chris went on the sex thing and you're going on an age thing? For crying out loud... This is why i hated dating cougars when I was in my early 20s...
_________________________
"Jesus wants to know what your favorite color is." - Antipas, post #1375498
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1084922 - 12/11/06 12:06 AM
Re: Scientifically illiterate politician
[Re: HappyHemper]
|
Stoner
Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 605
|
Quote:
So Chris went on the sex thing and you're going on an age thing? For crying out loud...
I love that I'm out to lunch because I'm the wrong sex or this maha person believes I'm the wrong age, but what the hell are THEIR credentials, eh?
My my, they have an opinion, oh joy, they've got their very own opinion to take to the bank with them...
One is vomitting Szasz and angry rants about junkies and bikers, the other has only presented the introduction to a book she hasn't even read yet... And they are trying to deface MY credibility! You've got to admit that's funny, lol.
This has been a lesson for me: don't get into an argument with somebody until you have seen what they have between the ears!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1084924 - 12/11/06 12:09 AM
Re: Scientifically illiterate politician
[Re: maha]
|
Enthusiast
Registered: 10/31/06
Posts: 219
Loc: East Van
|
Quote:
i think we were talking about the legalization of all drugs. not the current regulations governing pharmaceuticals.
the drugs i am talking about legalizing are the ones that prohibition props up and makes more available to our children than alcohol or tobacco. the ones that don't come with a label, and from people who don't ask for ID.
Look, meth is the same drug whether you call it Ritalin or crank. Just because you turned your underwear inside out doesn't mean that it's clean, get my drift?
It IS legal. you can stop fighting now, for at least 75% of the drugs you have in mind. 14 y.o. kids can go to a doctor, say they can't do their homework because they are bored, and the happy doctor will provide them with ample supply of a potent stimulant, covered under your extended health plan. Then they can go and trade it to their friends for cigarettes and everybody's happy.
How about de-regulating car insurance? I'd love that, i'm a big Eastern European guy, if i get into a car accident i can beat the shit out of the other person, take their money and fix my car.
regulation is your insurance against dumb people. Dumb people on drugs can be very dangerous. That's why i'm saying: work on the education first, then try to change the world. At the rates public schools in Canada are going, we'll have to sell pre-chewed food soon.
_________________________
"Jesus wants to know what your favorite color is." - Antipas, post #1375498
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1084926 - 12/11/06 12:33 AM
Re: Scientifically illiterate politician
[Re: maha]
|
Enthusiast
Registered: 10/31/06
Posts: 219
Loc: East Van
|
well, i don't know about Mel, but i am not about to start showing off degrees, lectures and publications just because some person doubts. if you paid enough attention, you'd be able to deduce everything from these discussions, and clear your doubts. But then again, deductive logic is not common, so i can't blame you there.
as you said, you advocate one thing, and i advocate the other one.
But then again, are you a man, disguising yourself as a woman? Wait a second, you ARE Chris! You even have the same argument. The one and only argument you have, the one about the autopsy table.
Way back I posted a bunch of links to how schizphrenia can be found on your altar: THE AUTOPSY TABLE! Behold, all bow, for 'tis the second coming of the pathologist!
My point is that neither I, nor you, nor mel, nor skitzo, have any proof of who we are. And i understand how bitter you may feel if mel is in fact a very curious and well-read 16 year-old girl who can smell the bullshit and refuse to take it from you. Wow, that'd be a slap in the face. There are no names attached, all you have is discourse. You are free to verify it, look into it and draw your own conclusions. HOWEVER if you don't do that, if you don't understand your opponent, maybe it's time for some more education, don't you think? Regardless of who the person typing is.
If you are spending your life waiting for an expert who will side with you, you might be better off becoming that expert yourself.
_________________________
"Jesus wants to know what your favorite color is." - Antipas, post #1375498
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: BongPixie, CaliGrower, chrisbennett, Dana Larsen, FranCouver, Fred_the_Plumber, frmrgrl, goodster, jacob, JodieEmery, Marc Scott Emery, MICHY, OCNORML, puff_tuff, stinkweed
|
Previous Topic
Index
