Marijuana Compound Halts Breast Cancer Tumor Growth

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

But, to your point, if i'm not a scientist and can identify faults; or at the very least questions

The thing is you're not a scientist and you're not educated enough to question their scientific findings. The best you can do is give your uneducated opinion on the study. Personally I find educated scientific findings alot more solid than the uneducated opinion of a skeptic. It's up to you who you want to believe, real scientists with real science to back up their findings or the naysayer who's probably biased anyway.

Well SD, i wouldn't say i'm uneducated. The thing is, you've ignored the question here, an 'uneducated' person is bringing up problems with what you're saying and you can't answer it, what by implication does that say about your level of intelligence?

This study, as i have said before, does not justify the name of the thread. As i said throughout it, there are questions for you guys to answer and sur-fucking-prise your haven't answered them. As i said, i'm not questioning their methods, i'm questioning the interpretations of their findings by yourself and others to justify the claims you make. Un-answered, again.

If, and i don't mean to offend you here as i am but a lowly uneducated fool, you knew anything about interpretation of Science you would know it falls into two catergories;roughly. Frist, there are issues with Philosophy, that is to make sure the logic used by the scientists is consistent and not flawed. If Philosophy and Theology is my game, then perhaps i may be qualified to comment on this? I do not address the methodology, i address the logic surronding the study by those using it and the logic within by those who carried it out.

It seem's strange you're calling doubt on the role of a skeptic or a nay sayer when you will at the same time start entire threads about the alternative stories to the offical ones and how they are true and it's down to the skeptics to spread and/or uncover the truth? Why is this, why are you so inconsistent on your thinking? ( this will i have no doubt remained unanswered).

Again with this Bias, i spend reply after reply trying to explain this to you but you seem to not have got it still. Anyone has bias, infact you're the one with bias here, having already abmitted we shouldn't question scientists or that you prefer the scientists opinions you are showing bias. This isn't difficult to grasp.

So, why don't we skip the formalities here and the wasted posts and you just say what your usual response is when you're backed into a corner because your thinking is shown to be flawed and false that 'you don't want to get into it' and we can pretend it's a draw right?

[Stanky Danky]

Well SD, i wouldn't say i'm uneducated. The thing is, you've ignored the question here, an 'uneducated' person is bringing up problems with what you're saying and you can't answer it, what by implication does that say about your level of intelligence?

When someone has an uneducated opinion on something it means they're not educated enough to say the findings are wrong. If you're not educated on how to analyze the growth of a cancer cell than your opinion is uneducated, plain and simple. And please stop claiming I can't answer your questions it's getting really old. Oh and the reason I'm the one always ending the debate is because I tire of your persistent ignorance, I never feel "backed into a corner."

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

Double Post.

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

And please stop claiming I can't answer your questions it's getting really old.

List of questions not answered so far.

Well SD, i wouldn't say i'm uneducated. The thing is, you've ignored the question here, an 'uneducated' person is bringing up problems with what you're saying and you can't answer it, what by implication does that say about your level of intelligence?

Frist, there are issues with Philosophy, that is to make sure the logic used by the scientists is consistent and not flawed. If Philosophy and Theology is my game, then perhaps i may be qualified to comment on this?

It seem's strange you're calling doubt on the role of a skeptic or a nay sayer when you will at the same time start entire threads about the alternative stories to the offical ones and how they are true and it's down to the skeptics to spread and/or uncover the truth? Why is this, why are you so inconsistent on your thinking?

I address your points in a manner consistent with critical thinking. But, to your point, if i'm not a scientist and can identify faults; or at the very least questions you and the MMJ group avoid/don't answer, does that not speak volumes about the scientific data you use to support your argument?

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

Double Post.

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

Well SD, i wouldn't say i'm uneducated. The thing is, you've ignored the question here, an 'uneducated' person is bringing up problems with what you're saying and you can't answer it, what by implication does that say about your level of intelligence?

When someone has an uneducated opinion on something it means they're not educated enough to say the findings are wrong. If you're not educated on how to analyze the growth of a cancer cell than your opinion is uneducated, plain and simple. And please stop claiming I can't answer your questions it's getting really old. Oh and the reason I'm the one always ending the debate is because I tire of your persistent ignorance, I never feel "backed into a corner."

Wow, you side stepped the questions again like they weren't there.

So if only if you're educated in something you can form an opinion on it? Ignoring the fact i'm very well qualified in Philosophy and Theology so therefore commenting on the Philosophy and thinking of you and others around the study ( it's easier to ignore this as it kinda debunks what you're saying ) is ok right? Jeez, you're getting more and more far fetched man, a valid opinion is valid because of the content of the opinion, not from the source it stems from.

Also, another question for you to side step, why if i'm not qualified to have an opinion on Science do you have an opinion which is correct that the Scientists are correct? Why, when i say that the assertions people are using this study for is false, is wrong? (Although it has fuck all to do with Science). If you also know nothing about Science, then there is no way of you knowing if the Scientists are right, you're beliving what you're told on face value without any knowledge whether it's right or wrong. Are the holes in your argument big enough yet?

In addition, what consitutes me as un-educated and you as not?

Ignorance, like refusing to answer a question posed to you and asserting that i am un-educated?

[Stanky Danky]

Ignorance, like refusing to answer a question posed to you and asserting that i am un-educated?

In case you missed it in my last post I already explained what it means to have an uneducated opinion. I'm not asserting that you are uneducated, I'm just saying ANYONE who forms an opinion on a study is giving their uneducated opinion, unless of course they're a scientist themselves. The reason I leave some of your questions unanswered is because I don't feel they are worth responding to not because I can't answer them, but just to make you happy I'll answer your questions.

List of questions not answered so far.

Quote:
Well SD, i wouldn't say i'm uneducated. The thing is, you've ignored the question here, an 'uneducated' person is bringing up problems with what you're saying and you can't answer it, what by implication does that say about your level of intelligence?

- Already explained what an uneducated opinion is twice. Pass

Frist, there are issues with Philosophy, that is to make sure the logic used by the scientists is consistent and not flawed. If Philosophy and Theology is my game, then perhaps i may be qualified to comment on this?

- Sorry dude a scientific study has nothing to do with philosophy.

It seem's strange you're calling doubt on the role of a skeptic or a nay sayer when you will at the same time start entire threads about the alternative stories to the offical ones and how they are true and it's down to the skeptics to spread and/or uncover the truth? Why is this, why are you so inconsistent on your thinking?

- I was addressing this topic specifically, and comparing attitudes on scientific findings to conspiracies is a bit like comparing apple to oranges.

I address your points in a manner consistent with critical thinking. But, to your point, if i'm not a scientist and can identify faults; or at the very least questions you and the MMJ group avoid/don't answer, does that not speak volumes about the scientific data you use to support your argument?

- No, not even close. Your uneducated opinion on the topic does nothing to discredit the scientific data.

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

In case you missed it in my last post I already explained what it means to have an uneducated opinion. I'm not asserting that you are uneducated, I'm just saying ANYONE who forms an opinion on a study is giving their uneducated opinion.

So by your own admission you know fuck all about Cannabis for medicine?

This logic is fucking ridiculous. If my bike chain comes off, i can put it on, i don't need to have studied it. But i've not a degree on putting chains on bikes so i can't give my opinion on the problem and have to push it all the way down to the bike shop so the dude's who job it is can do it? But wait, what if he doesn't have a degree, fuck, i better throw it in the bin right?

Also, your ignoring the fact that i am qualified in Philosophy, quite highly so. So, i'm commenting on the Philosophical aspect of the discussion surronding the study, therefore by your logic i'm perfectly qualified.

Quote:
Well SD, i wouldn't say i'm uneducated. The thing is, you've ignored the question here, an 'uneducated' person is bringing up problems with what you're saying and you can't answer it, what by implication does that say about your level of intelligence?

- Already explained what an uneducated opinion is twice. Pass
.

Yes, i'm not asking for an explanation am i, i asking what it says about your level of intelligence. Try again?

Frist, there are issues with Philosophy, that is to make sure the logic used by the scientists is consistent and not flawed. If Philosophy and Theology is my game, then perhaps i may be qualified to comment on this?

- Sorry dude a scientific study has nothing to do with philosophy.

Jesus.

Yes it does, the study of Medical Philosophy is hundreds of years old and has been commented on by the great minds from Kant, Mills, Bentham to John Rawles but not limited to those by any means.

Also...

If, and i don't mean to offend you here as i am but a lowly uneducated fool, you knew anything about interpretation of Science you would know it falls into two catergories;roughly. Frist, there are issues with Philosophy, that is to make sure the logic used by the scientists is consistent and not flawed. If Philosophy and Theology is my game, then perhaps i may be qualified to comment on this? I do not address the methodology, i address the logic surronding the study by those using it and the logic within by those who carried it out.

It seem's strange you're calling doubt on the role of a skeptic or a nay sayer when you will at the same time start entire threads about the alternative stories to the offical ones and how they are true and it's down to the skeptics to spread and/or uncover the truth? Why is this, why are you so inconsistent on your thinking?

- I was addressing this topic specifically, and comparing attitudes on scientific findings to conspiracies is a bit like comparing apple to oranges.

Not at all, you claim Skeptical thinking is false in this case, but strong in other cases. You're dealing with an overall disipline, critical thinking, you can't claim it's false and good. It's either one or the other.

I address your points in a manner consistent with critical thinking. But, to your point, if i'm not a scientist and can identify faults; or at the very least questions you and the MMJ group avoid/don't answer, does that not speak volumes about the scientific data you use to support your argument?

- No, not even close. Your uneducated opinion on the topic does nothing to discredit the scientific data.

By the same logic, you're view Cannabis is medicine has no basis. If your not qualified in Science then you have no right to comment, in support or opposition, against. So either we have a right to comment, or you know fuck all about anything you don't have a PHD in. Or why stop there, unless you're the highest qualified in your field then you have no right to comment.

Also, i'm afraid to break this to you, but Philosophical faults indicate faults esp. with your assertion of this study being proof and being back up by proof even though the actual researchers say the opposite. Again, i have not questioned the Philosophy within the study, i have commented on that which surronds it. But as previously said i'm questioning the use of the study in this case not the study itself.

What is the Scientific data here? The conculsions that further study is needed but this shows positive intial evidence? Fuck, that's the same as Cannabis stops cancer. That is a inconsitent logical leap and renders the argument null and void.

[Stanky Danky]

You're completely fucking ridiculous. You constantly take what I say and try to relate it to some completely different topic that doesn't even come close to making sense. How can you relate knowing how to change the chain on your bike to knowing how to conduct a scientific study. I also never said anything about my opinion on medicinal cannabis not being uneducated, you just assumed. When I said ANYONE I meant ANYONE, skeptics and believers alike. I'm starting to find it quite comical how you try to come off all educated in your posts, but they are riddled with fuzzy logic and other inconsistencies. Oh, and good like trying to convince anyone that a scientific study has anything to do with philosophy. Sorry dude philososphy never comes into the picture when using science to study something. Make another lengthy response and claim I can't answer your questions again if you want, but I won't answer. I'm done debating your ridiculous ass.

[islandgurl]

Isn't it amazing how it even says on the bottle "the flowering tops of cannabis sativa'. They already knew it back then.

People could buy this back in 1900 or whatever, but not anymore. WTF happened??

For us? Racism happened. Anslinger, DuPont and Hearst. Look up the quotes from Anslinger - "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men" or gems such as this one: "The primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

White supremacist (_[_)holes is how it was made illegal. DuPont and Hearst had the media and the money to back Anslinger - the rest is fookin history... and I do mean fookin.

[sh@dy]

Isn't it amazing how it even says on the bottle "the flowering tops of cannabis sativa'. They already knew it back then.

People could buy this back in 1900 or whatever, but not anymore. WTF happened??

For us? Racism happened. Anslinger, DuPont and Hearst. Look up the quotes from Anslinger - "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men" or gems such as this one: "The primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

White supremacist (_[_)holes is how it was made illegal. DuPont and Hearst had the media and the money to back Anslinger - the rest is fookin history... and I do mean fookin.

they may be the reason the people believed MJ had to be made illegal, but the real interests can be found in the economy, suchs as oil,cotton etc....

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

You're completely fucking ridiculous. You constantly take what I say and try to relate it to some completely different topic that doesn't even come close to making sense. How can you relate knowing how to change the chain on your bike to knowing how to conduct a scientific study.

Because Stanky, any statement made can be seen as being true if it has in Kantian terms an expectation of universallity, that is that logic is correct if it is universially applicable regardless of situation.

If you start with the premsis that I cannot comment on Scientific studies because i have not had the training to be scientist the break of that argument is that I, an independent agent, am dependable on qualification to comment on a issue. That is the forumula of that argument, so if we take that formula and apply it to a different situation, such as I an independent agent cannot comment ( and by implication act ) in my example replace a bike chain on an issue/situation in my example a broken bike, because i lack the qualification. Now, my point is that being qualified in a disicipline does not have a implication on the effectiveness on one to comment/act on the situation. Traditional qualifications are the be all and measure of total aquire knowledge of a human being.

You call it ridiculous, and you're right the example i have given and applied your knowledge to yeilds ridiculous answers, because your logic is fucking stupid.

I also never said anything about my opinion on medicinal cannabis not being uneducated, you just assumed. When I said ANYONE I meant ANYONE, skeptics and believers alike.

Yes you have, ffs, you said i have to believe the Scientists because i'm not a Scientist. If you're also not a Scientist, how can you justify telling me to believe the Scientist? That's an opinion on the situation, what justification of that opinion do you have if you're not a scientist and that as you previously said eliminates any opinion you therefore have.

I suspose you could say you're a sheep who doesn't think for himself and just believes what he is told for a justification?

. Oh, and good like trying to convince anyone that a scientific study has anything to do with philosophy. Sorry dude philososphy never comes into the picture when using science to study something.

Right, so you've obviously never read Kant on morality and science, Mills and Benthams comments on it, Aristotle on science and Aquinas to some extent. The fathers of Phillosophy dealt with it, you say they didn't, you're wrong and by your own logic have no right to comment on it because you're a Phillospher.

Is this not interesting SD, that i can comment on Science because i'm not qualified, but you can comment on Philosophy even though you're not qualified.

Double standards much?

Make another lengthy response and claim I can't answer your questions again if you want, but I won't answer. I'm done debating your ridiculous ass.[/

L-fucking-OL. I called this, man all you've done is attack the source of the argument not the argument itself, because you're not capable. Now you're pulling the fuck this your an idiot excuse and ignoring it? C'mon man, do you not think when people can pre-guess what you're going to do you need a new approach.

Argument that makes no sense,
Attack the person arguing against to try and ignore the argument itself,
Get a bit stuck and say you're leaving it because you cant be bothered/are done arguing with ridiculous people,
Possible threat of stabbing etc.

[islandgurl]

White supremacist (_[_)holes is how it was made illegal. DuPont and Hearst had the media and the money to back Anslinger - the rest is fookin history... and I do mean fookin.

they may be the reason the people believed MJ had to be made illegal, but the real interests can be found in the economy, suchs as oil,cotton etc....

Yeah but if they would have exposed their ulterior motives, people would have seen them for the greedy, power-hungry bastards they were and no support would have been given by the public. Better in those times to be known as a racist.... sad, but true. DuPont and Hearst got richer, Anslinger got the power he craved. Achieved their goal and didn't care how they did it... or who got hurt in the process.

Anybody got a time machine I can borrow for a little while? This southern girl could whoop some 'ayuss'!

[Stanky Danky]

You have no idea how funny it is to watch you try so hard to look smart only to look like a complete moron. I'll respond to each of your points just so you don't cry about how I have no answers.

Now, my point is that being qualified in a disicipline does not have a implication on the effectiveness on one to comment/act on the situation. Traditional qualifications are the be all and measure of total aquire knowledge of a human being.

Nice fancy wording, too bad the point your making is completely retarded. Questioning the science of a scientist loses all effecitveness when you know nothing about the science that was involved in the study. It's a bit like me commenting on the complexity of Beethoven's symphonies when I know nothing about writing music myself. And comparing the knowledge necessary to change the chain on your bike to the knowledge necessary to conduct a scientific study is utterly laughable.

Yes you have, ffs, you said i have to believe the Scientists because i'm not a Scientist.

Nope never said that. I said your opinion of the results of a study are uneducated because you don't have the scientific knowledge to give such an opinion. Just another attempt by Niall to twist my words to strengthen his case.

If you're also not a Scientist, how can you justify telling me to believe the Scientist?

How can you question the science of a scientific study when you have no knowledge of the science involved in the study? I guess you either trust the science of the scientist or you don't.

I suspose you could say you're a sheep who doesn't think for himself and just believes what he is told for a justification?

I guess you could say the same thing about your belief in the case for schizophrenia and marijuana. I think you would look the bigger sheep though considering there was no real science involved in that study.

Right, so you've obviously never read Kant on morality and science, Mills and Benthams comments on it, Aristotle on science and Aquinas to some extent. The fathers of Phillosophy dealt with it, you say they didn't, you're wrong and by your own logic have no right to comment on it because you're a Phillospher.

Sure there are philosophers who have commented on science, but that has nothing to do with the science used during a scientific study. The scientist uses no philosophy when tracking the progress of a tumor just science. Another swing and a miss by Sir Niall.

Is this not interesting SD, that i can comment on Science because i'm not qualified, but you can comment on Philosophy even though you're not qualified.

Having an opinion on someones philosophy is much different than having an opinion on a scientific method you're not educated on. As a scientifically uneducated person you can either trust the science of the scientist or question it even though you know nothing about his scientific method. Questioning someones philosophy is really only questioning their opinion not the results they got using science. You certainly do enjoy trying to relate two totally different subjects don't you.

I called this, man all you've done is attack the source of the argument not the argument itself, because you're not capable.

BULLSHIT. I answered all the questions you were crying about being unanswered. Your shit is weak and I'm easily capable of responding.

[sh@dy]

White supremacist (_[_)holes is how it was made illegal. DuPont and Hearst had the media and the money to back Anslinger - the rest is fookin history... and I do mean fookin.

they may be the reason the people believed MJ had to be made illegal, but the real interests can be found in the economy, suchs as oil,cotton etc....

Yeah but if they would have exposed their ulterior motives, people would have seen them for the greedy, power-hungry bastards they were and no support would have been given by the public. Better in those times to be known as a racist.... sad, but true. DuPont and Hearst got richer, Anslinger got the power he craved. Achieved their goal and didn't care how they did it... or who got hurt in the process.

Anybody got a time machine I can borrow for a little while? This southern girl could whoop some 'ayuss'!

tell me when your date of time-travel is, I will make sure to have a big bat with me.....or wait, we just have to make some brownies and give it to them before they make their speeches