op i hope you know that if you are right, that you kinda are not going to convince anyone by making a thread about it because you are just going to strengthen ther3e belief that you are wrong. now if you are right then hopefully in 50 years when humanity will possibly be less dumb we will be able to see who was right and who was wrong (or of course you can go to the bushes house put a gun up to his head and make him tell the truth on a camera then hopefully make it out of his house alive and show the on the internet or a new place)
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Troll or dumb" - TH89))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;24991469]op i hope you know that if you are right, that you kinda are not going to convince anyone by making a thread about it because you are just going to strengthen ther3e belief that you are wrong. now if you are right then hopefully in 50 years when humanity will possibly be less dumb we will be able to see who was right and who was wrong (or of course you can go to the bushes house put a gun up to his head and make him tell the truth on a camera then hopefully make it out of his house alive and show the on the internet or a new place)[/QUOTE]
The world is already less dumb by proving it point blank that it wasn't a conspiracy, saying 'oh no, the government did it and the science and the evidence makes no difference' is the only dumb part of this argument.
[QUOTE=TH89;24991448]Your original claim was that [B]"marijuana cures cancer, but the government/scientists are hiding it"[/B], and the the scientific community was suppressing that fact:
When I asked for evidence, you posted a study that didn't support that claim in any way, and a youtube video of a man claiming marijuana cured his cancer, but offering no evidence other than personal anecdote.
When you were pressed for real evidence, you posted a long list of scientific studies, none of which indicate that marijuana cures cancer. In the face of this, presumably realizing you were wrong but not wanting to admit it, you [I]changed[/I] your position to [B]"marijuana can help treat cancer, but the government/scientists are hiding it"[/B] claiming that was your "original point":
You also claimed that the scientific community refuses to tell the government about the findings that suggest marijuana may have medicinal properties):
This is also patently false, as I [URL="http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376"]pointed out[/URL]. You didn't respond, instead electing to claim that the studies support your position:
So, to recap, you have managed to backpedal completely from your original conspiracist claim that [B]"marijuana cures cancer, but the government/scientists are hiding it"[/B] to the completely banal and non-controversial claim that [B]"marijuana has some medicinal properties, according to some a number of scientific studies,"[/B] all without actually conceding a single point of debate.
Well done![/QUOTE]
My own personal anecdotes don't bare the same weight for others as they do for me, so I won't even go into them. I acknowledge I originally made the claim that it 'cures cancer' because of the fact I've seen the results with my own eyes. I switched my position only due to the fact that although however badly I wish there was scientists shouting at the rooftops to back up the specifics of my claims, alas there are not. What there are, is an [B]awful lot[/B] pointing the finger in that direction. So while I may have jumped the gun because we can't truly say that with undeniable certainty, I tried to be reasonable and adjust to 'what we do know'. I'm sure once we've studied cannabanoids effects on our brains (as they are in India right now), I'll be able to more certifiably tell you that as a matter of fact. This is all besides the point, as the only thing I was trying to prove is that the government have our scientists not revealing everything to us. That requires no citation as it can be clearly seen in the form of prohibition of marijuana. 'Well done' missing that point until just now where I had to spell it out...
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24991666]I acknowledge I originally made the claim that it 'cures cancer' because of the fact I've seen the results with my own eyes.[/QUOTE]
So when was the last time you cured yourself of cancer with weed?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24991666]I switched my position only due to the fact that although however badly I wish there was scientists shouting at the rooftops to back up the specifics of my claims, alas there are not. [/QUOTE]
Yes there is. There are lots. We hear about this study or that study nearly all the time. Atleast one 'weed is good for this' or 'weed is good for that' study is posted on the In The News section once a week. Why is everything 'the government' with you? The pharmaceutical companies have alot more power over drugs and research than the government does. All they do is decide if it should be legal or not (And as I said, they will not make it legal because a large portion of the conservative voters believe it's not safe, and a party can't get into power if it can't appease the majority of voters)
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24991666]What there are, is an [B]awful lot[/B] pointing the finger in that direction.[/QUOTE]
Yes that's true, but sadly they don't all lead to magical cures. Some just don't work, some lead to other discoveries, but most just aren't finished yet.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24991666]So while I may have jumped the gun because we can't truly say that with undeniable certainty, I tried to be reasonable and adjust to 'what we do know'.[/QUOTE]
'What we know' isn't 'the government are suppressing the truth'
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24991666]I'm sure once we've studied cannabanoids effects on our brains (as they are in India right now)[/QUOTE]
Most countries have some labs/universities somewhere studying cannabis. It's constant, going on all the time.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24991666]That requires no citation as it can be clearly seen in the form of prohibition of marijuana. 'Well done' missing that point until just now where I had to spell it out...[/QUOTE]
No it can't. We've proved that. It's peoples attitudes to drugs, and the fact that there is no cure for cancer using cannabis except on mice. Everything needs citation. I'm sorry we can't take 'your word for it'.
Of course!
Building 7 was filled with weed!
The terrorists destroyed it to ruin america's supply.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;24991958]Of course!
Building 7 was filled with weed!
The terrorists destroyed it to ruin america's supply.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit. Man. You are a genius. You're fucking right. Quick quick! Lets start a website, a wiki page, and several pseudoscience blogs!
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24991666]My own personal anecdotes don't bare the same weight for others as they do for me, so I won't even go into them. I acknowledge I originally made the claim that it 'cures cancer' because of the fact I've seen the results with my own eyes. I switched my position only due to the fact that although however badly I wish there was scientists shouting at the rooftops to back up the specifics of my claims, alas there are not. What there are, is an [B]awful lot[/B] pointing the finger in that direction. So while I may have jumped the gun because we can't truly say that with undeniable certainty, I tried to be reasonable and adjust to 'what we do know'. I'm sure once we've studied cannabanoids effects on our brains (as they are in India right now), I'll be able to more certifiably tell you that as a matter of fact. This is all besides the point, as the only thing I was trying to prove is that the government have our scientists not revealing everything to us. That requires no citation as it can be clearly seen in the form of prohibition of marijuana. 'Well done' missing that point until just now where I had to spell it out...[/QUOTE]
there are an [b]awful lot[/b] of people saying pot cures cancer on forums dedicated to potheads, yes
what does the effect of marijuana on your brain have to do with cancer
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say if weed is legalized [b]maybe[/b] one out of ten people will use it for medicinal purposes, I'm all for it being used to relieve pain or headaches if you absolutely need it, but right now without any evidence, getting it to cure your cancer is as legit as getting it to cure athlete's foot
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;24992042]Holy shit. Man. You are a genius. You're fucking right. Quick quick! Lets start a website, a wiki page, and several pseudoscience blogs![/QUOTE]
I'm willing to fill in as an expert in physics, and engineering.
I've got my serious face all ready to go!
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24991666]This is all besides the point, as the only thing I was trying to prove is that the government have our scientists not revealing everything to us. That requires no citation as it can be clearly seen in the form of prohibition of marijuana.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376[/url]
[url]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376[/url]
[url]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376[/url]
[url]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376[/url]
[url]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376[/url]
[url]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376[/url]
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;24991913]
Why is everything 'the government' with you? The pharmaceutical companies have alot more power over drugs and research than the government does. All they do is decide if it should be legal or not[/QUOTE] I am well aware of this fact. This is true for almost any corporation who want their way whether or not the people like it. I say 'the government' because, quite frankly, the government should serve to help the people [I]in every way[/I]. Sorry I feel so strongly about that.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;24991913]
'What we know' isn't 'the government are suppressing the truth'[/QUOTE]
That isn't what I meant. I meant that 'what we know' is the plethora of tidbits of information we have on how cannabis helps people. The government currently has it stated that Marijuana is as deadly as meth, and with no medicinal benefits. That is proof of a cover up of information.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;24991913]
No it can't. We've proved that. It's peoples attitudes to drugs, and the fact that there is no cure for cancer using cannabis except on mice. I'm sorry we can't take 'your word for it'.[/QUOTE] Peoples attitudes towards drugs, which were(and still are) influenced by government disinformation. This has been proven. As has the rest of what I've stated.
[QUOTE=JohnStamosFan;24992052]I'm willing to fill in as an expert in physics, and engineering.
I've got my serious face all ready to go![/QUOTE]
Excellent! You're now our top science man! Don't worry, I won't need to see your certificates just sign this petition saying who you are and what you do.
Now we just need to find an angle of WTC 7 that looks a little green in the light, make a few edits on Final Cut Pro and make a DVD!
Hell yes.
Also, government doesn't really spread disinformation on marijuana.
Marijuana is pretty much considered by most people(who don't know anything) as it is portrayed in a film from the 1920's called "reefer madness".
we'll call it "A Morning Bus ride" because it has nothing to do with the actual topic!
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;24992149]
Also, government doesn't really spread disinformation on marijuana.
Marijuana is pretty much considered by most people(who don't know anything) as it is portrayed in a film from the 1920's called "reefer madness".[/QUOTE]
Which was released and produced with the help of the U.S. government. Sounds like spreading disinformation to me.
[url=http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=22399264&postcount=19]holy god[/url]
I know I'm still contributing to this massive derailment but for the love of all that is good in the world can we keep this kid away from any political or social threads?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992081]I am well aware of this fact. This is true for almost any corporation who want their way whether or not the people like it. I say 'the government' because, quite frankly, the government should serve to help the people [I]in every way[/I]. Sorry I feel so strongly about that.[/QUOTE]
Hey don't be sorry about that, I believe in Universal Health Care and the Welfare State, but the fact is that cannabis is not as rosy as we'd all like to believe. Sure, it's not cocaine, but it'd be better if it just stayed as a pain reliever (Since, you'know, that's the only real thing it's been proven to be good at) But the fact is the government can't control the companies, and implying it has/should have completely control makes you look either crazy or a communist.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992081]That isn't what I meant. I meant that 'what we know' is the plethora of tidbits of information we have on how cannabis helps people. The government currently has it stated that Marijuana is as deadly as meth, and with no medicinal benefits. That is proof of a cover up of information.[/QUOTE]
No, that's propaganda. There is a difference. The government does not actively suppress, deny or cover up any studies, pro-drug groups, or refuse scientists to make entries for peer-review. They either a) believe that drugs are bad because of the 'War on drugs' campaign (And there was alot less scientific evidence back then, lots of studies have been carried out in the past 30 years), or b) think that the risk of allowing it for public consumption can be damaging to the public, appeasing anti-drugs campaigners, parents, and lobbyists in the process.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992081]Peoples attitudes towards drugs, which were(and still are) influenced by government disinformation. This has been proven. As has the rest of what I've stated.[/QUOTE]
Not completely true. I was never taught in school that cannabis could kill me, or do anything incredibly horrible to me other than slow my judgment leading me to a higher risk of accidents while driving (Which is mostly true) or damage my lungs due to the smoke (Again true). That's hardly government repression. It's true that some states have tougher lessons about cannabis, but that's down to local schools and whoever they have in to talk about it.
[editline]03:37AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=cccritical;24992219][url=http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=22399264&postcount=19]holy god[/url]
I know I'm still contributing to this massive derailment but for the love of all that is good in the world can we keep this kid away from any political or social threads?[/QUOTE]
That's. All. He. Posts. In.
Ever.
[QUOTE=TH89;24992075][URL]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376[/URL]
[URL]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376[/URL]
[URL]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376[/URL]
[URL]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376[/URL]
[URL]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376[/URL]
[URL]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376[/URL][/QUOTE]
Obviously there are scientists out there who will get their word out, but we're talking about 9/11 here, they'd never get published because the government sure as hell can't have people lending legitimacy to those kinds of claims.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992256]Obviously there are scientists out there who will get their word out, but we're talking about 9/11 here, they'd never get published because the government sure as hell can't have people lending legitimacy to those kinds of claims.[/QUOTE]
Then why are there no published reports outside America where the government has no control?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992256]Obviously there are scientists out there who will get their word out, but we're talking about 9/11 here, [B]they'd never get published because the government sure as hell can't have people lending legitimacy to those kinds of claims.[/B][/QUOTE]
That's just an excuse.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992256]Obviously there are scientists out there who will get their word out, but we're talking about 9/11 here, they'd never get published because the government sure as hell can't have people lending legitimacy to those kinds of claims.[/QUOTE]
internet
internet
[b]internet[/b]
upload that shit from a different country
someone already pointed out Wikileaks would fucking tout that thing like a lambourghini in a ghetto
[QUOTE=cccritical;24992317]internet
internet
[b]internet[/b][/quote]
Exactly. If the government can't control one guy with one website, how could they control thousands of scientists?
There are as a matter of fact, previously I posted an interview with a danish physicist who had recently completed a study that had taken 8+ years to publish, proving that there had to be an outside force involved in the building collapse. That study can surely be found on the internet somewhere, as can the interview.
[editline]02:43AM[/editline]
I know you guys are gonna ask so I'm already looking.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992256]Obviously there are scientists out there who will get their word out, but we're talking about 9/11 here, they'd never get published because the government sure as hell can't have people lending legitimacy to those kinds of claims.[/QUOTE]
"The government would never allow scientists to tell the truth about 9/11! Just look at how they made them lie about marijuana!"
"That never happened. Here's a bunch of scientists publishing studies on the medicinal value of marijuana."
"Yeah, but we're not talking about marijuana, we're talking about 9/11!"
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992342]There are as a matter of fact, previously I posted an interview with a danish physicist who had recently completed a study that had taken 8+ years to publish, proving that there had to be an outside force involved in the building collapse. That study can surely be found on the internet somewhere, as can the interview.[/QUOTE]
You've shown us that before. He was presenting his work on a morning TV show, and he made absolutely no new or irrefutable points.
That's one guy, where are the other thousands of angry scientists?
[editline]03:44AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992342]I know you guys are gonna ask so I'm already looking.[/QUOTE]
[B]Where are the thousands of other angry scientists?[/B]
I've got about eight more minutes, hopefully just enough for th to throw in one last zinger
[URL="http://stj911.org/"]Here's the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.[/URL]
Thats for starters. Also, you guys seem to think that just because my scientific research journals are involved with 9/11 in particular means that they aren't peer reviewed. About that...
[Quote]The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001. Many fields of study are represented in the journal, including Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Psychology. All content is freely available online. Our mission in the past has been to provide an outlet for evidence-based research into the events of 9/11 that might not otherwise have been published, due to the resistance that many established journals and other institutions have displayed toward this topic. The intention was to provide a rapid acceptance process with full peer review[/Quote]
ok now this thread is just getting stupid cause both sides look like they are not going to change there views about anything.
its kinda like an unstoppable object heading towards an unmovable object
The Danish researcher previously mentioned is also listed on that website, as well as his studies/findings. I implore you to not disregard them immediately, and to take them into consideration.
[editline]02:54AM[/editline]
mahhh automerge
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992342]There are as a matter of fact, previously I posted an interview with a danish physicist who had recently completed a study that had taken 8+ years to publish, proving that there had to be an outside force involved in the building collapse. That study can surely be found on the internet somewhere, as can the interview.
[editline]02:43AM[/editline]
I know you guys are gonna ask so I'm already looking.[/QUOTE]
There had to be an OUTSIDE force? Maybe the airplane crashing into it did something, no?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992480][URL="http://stj911.org/"]Here's the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Does this link provide anything new, or are you giving up?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24992480]Thats for starters. Also, you guys seem to think that just because my scientific research journals are involved with 9/11 in particular means that they aren't peer reviewed. About that...[/QUOTE]
Peer reviewed by who? Are they peer reviewed by neutral scientists, or peer reviewed by other 9/11 Truthers?
Edit:
Lets see... ah yes, riviting subjects such as "Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations", "Islam and the 9/11 Wars: Steven Jones Interviews Kevin Barrett", oh and "Faulty Towers of Belief: Part I. Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth"
This reads like a conservative newspaper, not a scientific journal. Half of these are opinion pieces... Jesus. I shall read a few of them tomorrow, and report back. But I'm not holding my hopes high.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.