At 12/7/08 03:16 PM, RWT wrote: Stupid gay feminist loser! Everyone knows men don't have feelings!

D:

Sorry 'bout that. It's part of my idiom. I love blog post #15... where were you? Jackson Ward at midnight? And we're supposed to call them Homeless. Unless you're that crazy chick who writes into the Times-Dispatch every week about how we shouldn't "encourage them." Are we on speaking terms yet?

Nah, actually I live in Jackson ward, it's pretty safe to walk around here at midnight, do that all the time. I was in church hill, apparently right next to the projects.

At 12/7/08 04:14 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: First of all, it isn't so much about how hot it is or how cold it is, but how fast the change in temperature is.

Which I already pointed out on the previous page was moving at it's natural pace.

they are suffering from global warming's effects.

Which is proceeding at it's natural pace unaffected by humans.

Look at the homepage of newsbusters.org. The title of the website is "NewsBusters.org | Exposing Liberal Media Bias" The second I saw that title I realized it was way too biased a site to be trusted.

I'll give you that.

If you remember I wasn't so much concerned that WAIS would melt. I was more concerned for the melting that had happened before this brief few years of cooling (Which is one anomaly on a larger trend). During that period water has collected under the ice sheet which poses a major risk of it falling into the ocean. If it slowly melts it would not be nearly as catastrophic as if it collapsed.

Let's look at the data thus far presented and the problem:

Problem: If temperature change happens too fast, glaciers might break off and rise sea levels. Glaciers might melt if it gets too warm.

Data: We have seen that the glaciers did not exhibit such events during the medieval climate optimum when temperature was greater than it is now nor at times when the temperature was even greater than the MCO and temperature change is proceeding at it's natural pace.

You also have not defended against the fact that hydrocarbon use does not correlate with increased arctic air temperatures. So even if you're correct in worry about rising temperature, you still have not found a cause nor a way to combat it.

Also:
400 prominent scientists dispute man-made global warming theory

400 out of how many?

Is that all you have to say?

Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that the politicians are giving us the science and the scientists are the ones opposing them?

Shouldn't we trust 400 scientists over 1000 politicians (IPCC) on a scientific matter?

At 12/6/08 10:47 PM, dude908 wrote: and since I'm not a women and don't have estrogen

Men have estrogen too...

and yes, women also have testosterone.

At 12/7/08 09:14 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote: There is still a major risk that land based glaciers on Greenland and Antarctica might suddenly collapse.

Look at previous data, the temperature has grown much higher than it is now, and much higher than the medieval climate optimum, yet polar bears are still alive, penguins are still alive, we still have both the arctic and anatarctic caps, if they didn't melt when the climate was much warmer, why would they melt now that we're actually in a much cooler time period?

Also I suggest you start doing some research, the antarctic sheet is growing, not shrinking. In 2007 the Antarctic sheets were measured at record size, 16 million square kilometers which is the largest it's ever been in recorded history. The ice between canada and greenland has reached it's highest levels in 15 years.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davids on/2008/02/16/western-greenland-ice-grow ing-still-global-warming

http://www.globalwarming.org/node/160

Also:
400 prominent scientists dispute man-made global warming theory

At 12/6/08 06:40 PM, CBP wrote: You remember Katrina? One of the worst hurricanes ever? Tropical storms like this are getting worse as global warming gets worse. I would classify that as a disruption.

One bad storm does not equal total disruption, we've seen a drop in hurricane occurance, wouldn't that be a good thing?

See above. Also, even if that was all, it is a change from the normal routine, hence a disruption.

So I guess when a child abuser stops beating his kids it's disruptive right?

Disruptive has a negative connotation, yet the data clearly show's that hurricanes occurance has lessened, that the climate is actually becoming more stable. You can technically call this a disruption, but I would say it's a damn good disruption.

Katrina is ruled out as being a cause of global warming because we see less storms and more stability the warmer a climate gets.

"The Earth's climate is more stable during warm periods. The warming heats the polar regions more than the equatorial regions, reducing temperature differences and thus reducing the power of storms."

"History shows that a warmer world is better for human health on average. It tends to boost agricultural productivity, which reduces hunger and the illnesses that inadequate nutrition help produce. In addition, weather patterns are generally more stable with fewer catastrophic weather events, and warm weather produces far fewer deaths than cold weather. These factors contribute to longer average life spans and increased human populations during climactic warm periods compared to cooler times."

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba516/

Look, if man made global warming were real, it would actually be a good thing. As I previously pointed out, we are below the established medieval climate optimum.

At 12/6/08 02:45 PM, Korriken wrote: Consider the playstation 3 and xbox 360s to both be Barack Obama systems. its all about change!

I can't believe how much you reversed the actual situation.

The progression of consoles has always been to increase the power of the console. Look at nes to snes. Major changes are :increase in graphical power, increase in cart memory, and an increase in controller buttons. Snes to N64, increase of cart memory, increase of graphical power, and increase of buttons on the controller (but with the innovative analog stick). PS1 to ps2, improved graphical power, improved disc capacity. xbox to xbox360, improved disc capacity, improved graphical power, more media functions. ps2 to ps3, improved disc capacity, improved graphical power, media functions. Nintendo with it's wii and DS has not followed the usual course of console evolution. They did not increase the graphical power by a substantial amount, they decreased the amount of buttons on the controller and offered no media functions on their machine that were previously offered.

Basically what Nintendo did (and sucessfully) is called market disruption. Instead of attempting to compete in the power war with big corps like sony and microsoft and end up losing, Nintendo decided to innovate, they went and designed new technology instead of just better tech.

At 12/6/08 02:56 AM, arcansi wrote: Isn't the console "war" following the same formula as "The my country is better than yours!" "war"?

Politics isn't just a screaming match on who's better.

At 12/5/08 08:44 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: First of all, the sun is not a ball of fire.

Fine a giant ball of hydrogen converting to helium which creates a tremendous amount of heat and light.

Secondly, you don't understand the basic science behind global warming.

Yes I do.

The sun is the main cause of global warming, the greenhouse gasses just trap the heat absorbed by the earth causing it to warm.

I know this, what I'm saying is that the science doesn't add up, CO2 rises after the heat rise, not before, it cannot be the cause if it is the effect.

The website you mentioned claims that global warming started before hydrocarbon use, yet this isn't exactly true.

Actually if you read it, it shows that glacial melting started before hydrocarbon usage, not global warming in general. This means the melting glaciers global warmists warn ab out are a natural occurance.

It shows the trend beginning at around 1850, which is true, that is when the trend first started. However, ice core studies have shown that CO2 levels also started increasing then. Coal was already being burned at that time (actually it was burned from about a thousand years before that),

This is true, but if you look at the chart, the usage of coal was so minimal that to claim that it had an effect then is ludicrous if you look at the data, hydrocarbon usage has risen dramatically since those times. If the very little amount of coal being burned then was able to cause CO2 levels in the atmosphere to rise such a dramatic amount then we would be seeing the same thing on a greater scale today, yet we don't. The CO2 rise was a result of higher solar activity, not from coal burning.

and deforestation was very common. At that time deforestation was a bigger cause of global warming than hydrocarbon emission.

Deforestation rates started their dramatic decline in the 1980s. Yet hydrocarbon usage dramatically increased as early as 1850. There's gaps in your data.

However the amount of warming in the late 19th century is negligible to the speed that it is happening at now.

Oh so it's a short therm thing again, gotcha.

At 12/5/08 08:46 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: I also question the accuracy of the graph as I have googled it in search of other graphs and many sites show significantly different results.

Provide evidence of what you're saying and I suggest you read through the link next time before replying. You'll see that it is well credited.

At 12/5/08 10:08 PM, Musician wrote: If you were to look at the climate change we've been experiencing over the last half century you would realize that since the mid-1900's the global climate has been rising at an alarming rate.

It's rising because we're coming out of the little ice age. When you come out of an ice age, usually the temperature rises...

What would be considered a normal year today would be considered a particularly warm year several decades ago.

Because it was closer to the ice age...

Do you have any reason be calling these scientists corrupt? Just pure bias?

What about the fact that putting "to study the effects it has on global warming" now gets you a government grant for any research you could possibly wish to do?

I'd like to study the effects of spicy foods on the rabbit population, in relation to it's effects on global warming

Here's your check for $50,000!

Well there's obviously more than several people causing this. Carbon Dioxide is a produced by all forms of industry and machinery. It adds up to a bit more than "some guys driving in their old 64's". I also agree that the sun has it's part in global warming, but Carbon Dioxide is playing the dominant role. There's just not enough sun activity to explain the recent increase in temperature.

What about the graph I've posted already that shows that arctic air temperature corresponds directly with solar activity while being completely unaffected by the increase in hydrocarbon usage?

And this demonization of CO2 is ridiculous. CO2 is a trace gas, it makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere. Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 yet the amount of average water vapor in the atmosphere is 1%.

I quote from my earlier linked article "Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length."

At this point we are 1 degree lower than the medieval climate optimum, so it would be a good thing to see a rise in temperature actually. Warmer temperatures cause less storms, it's also known to raise comfort levels in humans and make them more amiable and empathetic.

And an alarming rate of warming?

" Figure 4: Annual mean surface temperatures in the contiguous United States between 1880 and 2006 (10). The slope of the least-squares trend line for this 127-year record is 0.5 ºC per century.

Surface temperatures in the United States during the past century reflect this natural warming trend and its correlation with solar activity, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. Compiled U.S. surface temperatures have increased about 0.5 °C per century, which is consistent with other historical values of 0.4 to 0.5 °C per century during the recovery from the Little Ice Age (13-17). This temperature change is slight as compared with other natural variations, as shown in Figure 6. Three intermediate trends are evident, including the decreasing trend used to justify fears of "global cooling" in the 1970s. "

The warming rate is at it's natural trend. I've gone ahead and posted figure 4 for you too see, as most of you are either skimming the article or outright ignoring it.

One more quote to try and bash this into your closed off minds

"During the current period of recovery from the Little Ice Age, the U.S. climate has improved somewhat, with more rainfall, fewer tornados, and no increase in hurricane activity, as illustrated in Figures 7 to 10. Sea level has trended upward for the past 150 years at a rate of 7 inches per century, with 3 intermediate uptrends and 2 periods of no increase as shown in Figure 11. These features are confirmed by the glacier record as shown in Figure 12. If this trend continues as did that prior to the Medieval Climate Optimum, sea level would be expected to rise about 1 foot during the next 200 years."

Yes, the US climate has improved. Oh and what? This article isn't biased! They clearly state that the sea level is rising, which is not a good thing, this isn't the article of some crazed foaming at the mouth right winger denouncing everything the left has to say or something like that, this is article is made by real climate scientists making observations on the climate. And what they've found is, hydrocarbon use does not make the climate warmer, we are in a natural trend proceeding at a natural rate and the climate is more stable than it was previously, but the sea level is rising.

At 12/5/08 11:22 PM, CBP wrote: The warming of the Earth cause disruption in weather patterns, making some parts of the Earth colder. When you make a post, either seek our help if you need to know something or make a post that you have evidence for.

Disruption of weather patterns? Why then have we seen less hurricanes and tornados and more rainfall?

Those are all good things, how come they get classified as disruption?

Also, dude, telling someone to ask you for help to make a post is obscenely rude and narcissistic.

At 12/5/08 05:29 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: That's because people have started dring hybrid cars. Coal burning plants have installed better filters. People have started using solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, and nuclear power. People have made improvements onto their homes to increase feul efficiency.

Oh ok, so short term changes greatly affect the environment gotcha.

Moreover, a period of time as short as ten years doesn't really prove much in the long term. Global warming takes much longer than ten years.

Oh, so things are only effective in the long term....Gotcha....

Anyways, coal and gas usage have little effect on global climate

Do you really think that the people scattered loosely across this planet can have an effect stronger than a 864,938 mile wide ball of fire?

At 12/5/08 12:31 PM, homor wrote:

At 12/3/08 06:57 PM, bigblueDUMBASS wrote: my question is: will robots want to have sex with household items?

yeah, those things don't talk.

All the better if you ask me.

What, you expected him to just give you a discount just because you wanted one?

As already said, learn to bargain man. If you want prices lowered you're going to have to convince him that it should be.

At 12/3/08 08:17 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: Who said that you would introduce weapons to both sides? I was just talking about introducing weapons to the ships. I don't want to give the crew guns, as that would create the problem you mention. I intend more to have a few people at high points on the ship with sniper rifles. If the guards are well organized they can take out the pirates before they get close enough to the ship to cause harm.

Pirates attack at night and in the fog. Also that might just encourage them to start shooting the tops of ships with RPGs. I think the best way to get rid of pirates is to have a well equipped and funded coast guard around your country, of course that will never happen worldwide until the world reaches a utopia though.

At 12/3/08 07:35 PM, stafffighter wrote: If you don't tear up you don't have a soul

I got bored and x'd out halfway through. Muppets aren't very moving to me.

At 12/3/08 07:34 PM, fli wrote: I say Merry Christmas...
You can say anything back in return, who's gonna care, really...

I am, because I'm an atheist/devil worshipper out to destroy christmas and america. If you tell me merry christmas I'll tell you I don't believe in jesus and walk out of the store. Let's see you handle that!

At 12/3/08 04:32 PM, Thimbles wrote: We should all wear name tags with our religion and preferred holiday greeting on them.

Hello, I'm an Atheist.
PG: Happy holidays.

Hello, I'm a Christian
PG: Merry Christmas

Hello, I'm Jewish
PG: Happy Hanukkah

Hello, I'm African-American
PG: Jolly Kwanza

Hello, I'm a Scientologist
PG:$10,000 Cash

At 12/1/08 03:17 PM, heroicspatula wrote: see the hypocrisy there?

It's not hypocrisy, I simply can't afford a $10,000 dollar installation.

This is an American site, so I don't know how many people you will get rushing into this thread. But one thing I want to say about this :

At 12/3/08 05:46 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Emancipation Proclamation

It is a useless document, in typical high school classes they tell you it ended slavery. But they fail to tell you that the actual document only ended slavery in confederate controlled states, this means the border states that were slave states but still part of the union could still have slavery, and this only free'd slaves in the south, which at the time of it's writing had already seceded and wouldn't be listening to our orders anyways. In reality Lincoln only wrote this up because Britain was very anti-slavery at the time and because Jeffy had a plan called "King Cotton"; the south stopped trading Britain cotton and pressured them to take out the north for them. At this point in time Britains cotton was pretty much all coming from southern America, so it sounds like a good plan on paper; but they neglected two things that cotton grows outside of the US and Britain just went on to grow it's on cotton in india and africa and that Britain was very anti-slavery, they would never co-operate with the south. But Lincoln was still scared of the possibility and wrote up the Emancipation Proclamation to show Britain where he and the North stands on the subject so that they know where to send support if they ever did decide too.

At 12/3/08 04:30 PM, Contipec wrote: The dream of every Neo-Nazi and of every skinhead. The dream of Bush also. To disband the UN. I say no, I say keep the UN!

That doesn't even make sense, why would neo-nazis want the UN to fail?

The UN needs to be disbanded because it's corrupt and it's nature corrupts. It gives everyone of it's employees international diplomatic immunity, these people go out and rape, murder, and steal and no one has the authority to try them. Many of the members of the UN are known thieves.(among other things)

At 11/29/08 11:15 PM, frigi wrote: Spent $10,000 to get them installed and what not? Probably would of cost less to just pay for electricity from the power company.

Yeah, but the technology will never get cheaper and advance if people don't support it.

Good on him for taking one for the team!

I'll buy a solar panel for my house when they're around maybe 1,000 dollars for an installation.

At 12/1/08 07:16 AM, homor wrote: thats how slaves were treated, then the president saw it as wrong and freed them, could there possibly be an Licoln for robots?

It would only happen if robots became sentient. Which they wouldn't for a very very long time. I mean we would have to give them emotions and possibly make them organically based so that they can grow, unlike a silicone chip. Because with chips you must program the personality, with an organic brain it can absorb information and grow on it's own, forming it's own personality and opinions.

At 11/30/08 10:31 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: There are many other forms of recreation that are even beneficial; marijuana use is not the only thing that provides the benefit of relaxation.

But that doesn't disqualify it at all, just because basketball exists doesn't mean we don't need baseball. get it?

That would be great, but some people take up knitting or buy a cat. I think one could do better than marijuana.

Now you're deciding what other people should do for them, people should be given the freedom to decide to do whatever they want as long as it harms no other.

I have personally whiteness this take place.

That would have been you accusing me of not doing so and challenging me to put up a defense where none was necessary. Not the same thing.

You probably didn't realize that to defend your argument you would have had to elaborate on it. Right?

I have pushed past a few things in an attempt to get to the core of the debate, so perhaps "expand" was not the right word to use, I was trying to focus in and move forward.

You were trying to ignore the data so that it couldn't be used against you.

And is it not one or at least a downgrade when you substitute it for a productive activity, even reading a book and learning something or watching an educational program to expand your mind and better yourself?

You're ignoring the existence of noneducational pro-gramming, comic books, funny pages, etc... Where's the productivity in the man show? Or in garfield?

Just because a recreation isn't necessarily productive, does not make it useless. Recreation is about enjoying yourself and relieving stress. It does not have to be productive. If you're going the make the statement that it should be, you have to condemn every television channel except for the news, the history channel, and discovery channel, you must condemn all comic books, cartoons, and essentially culture.

That's how I relax sometimes, I sit in front of my computer and look something up, or play a mentally stimulating game, or watch an educational program on tv (History channel is my favorite). The last thing I would think to do is smoke a weed.

When I had a TV in my house, I would watch the history channel and discovery high a lot. Awesome stuff, I love history as a matter of fact, favorite current subject in school. But anyways, I always absorb the same amount of information, even high, there may be some relation in the fact that even educational television requires very little usage at all of the brain. But I also read high and practice music high, and I know those activities require high levels of brain function so it's probably not even a factor. But I'm no doctor. Anyways you can tell I'm a little high now, since I tend to ramble a little bit. But I'll get to the point now, your choice of what you relax to should not have to be everybody's choice.

I find it curious your use of the word "habit".

Oh probably because we were discussing it in a negative sense so I had a negative connotation in mind when wording the sentence, but that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence itself. A purely recreational activity is not necessarily a bad one.

Except they do provide physical betterment which I feel is very important considering the percentage of obese people in this country.

But there's the danger of breaking a limb, or in some cases death. A great risk in driving a car at around 275 mph, and sky diving? Shit, if you fucked up putting your pack together you have no chance of survival, and while we're on that subject what does skydiving get for you anyways? An overhead view of the town you don't live in?

Marijuana also has it's benefits, boosted creativity and a great stress relief. If I was out in the field playing soccer all day, whats wrong with me taking a bong riff when I get home? Physical exercise is a completely unrelated aspect of a persons life. Just because you don't smoke doesn't mean that you can't exercise. And you can promote people exercising without attempting to smother marijuana smoking.

I think it's a tragedy that some people waste away their lives playing video games, especially children. Art is to expand ones mind, especially while creating it. (I play the piano myself.)

But what use is the art itself?

There is no use for a piece of music beyond the pleasure of hearing it. No use for art beyond appreciating it's vision.

It's a vice because it's a habit and provides no exclusive benefit to the user.

Creativity, stress relief, and a social icebreaker.

To someone who has the self control to break the habit if need be, yes.

It's not physically addictive, anyone can easily stop. Most people do stop, easily, for months at a time and without conscious decision to do so.

I didn't need your approval to smoke pot, thanks. Finally we're debating on the same grounds though. Look marijuana is only a vice in your eyes because you classify it as such, I have yet to see you elaborate as to the why it is bad only that it is bad.

I'm pretty sure I have gone over this but I shall expand. It may not be bad in and of itself but rather the potential for it to be abused is there.

Completely idiotic argument I must say. Milk can be abused, coffee can be abused, water can be abused, broomsticks can be abused. You don't outlaw something just people can potentially do something stupid with it.

Abusing marijuana (or anything for that matter) is bad. The benefits are the very same thing that make it potentially harmful,

You don't believe that junk science that if it gets you high it kills brain cells, do you?

if not physically then psychologically. Who doesn't want to feel relaxed all the time (for example)?

I don't understand why you'd ask that question.

Or to draw up a comparison: The very same thing that makes candy appealing is the sweetness of the sugar and the satisfying effects of the fat.

So you're saying we should outlaw candy. Got it.

It creates a psychological addiction

A psychological addiction is not an addiction. That's like peoples addiction to chocolate. Are you going to tell me we shouldn't encourage chocolate eating because people are going to ruin their lives buying nothing but chocolate?

Except they are breaking the law and all that, making them not exactly innocent. The law is the law whether we agree with it or not.

An unjust law is still a law yes. But really, these people lead normal lives and 89% of them are only in there for possesion, they're persons prosecuted for a personal activity, not rapistsmurderers and theives.

So to restate with a little more clarity on my part, I believe there should be no laws prohibiting or legitimizing its use. In other words, I think the best thing we could do is lift the ban on marijuana and put no laws in its place. As I said before, the government is not (supposed to be) a nanny state, and therefore should remain neutral on the topic of marijuana legality

So why are we arguing? I thought you still wanted it illegal.

At 11/30/08 08:18 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: Now imagine our culture encouraging it's use or at the very least not providing anything to counter influinces encouraging it's use.

I imagine a culture that doesn't prosecute itself for harmless recreation. A culture that does not see happiness as evil, a culture where a stress reliever does not have the ability to kill you with an overdose, where a stress reliever does not make you violent and emotional.

Take note World of warcraft has destroyed more lives than marijuana.

You have not once asked me to elaborate my responce,

Bold faced lie, my last post consisted almost entirely of me asking you to elaborate your point.

All I have been doing, save a couple posts where I try to expand the debate slightly, is clear up what I said as you have a habit of taking things out of context.

Expand the debate? All you have done is told me that every point I bring up on marijuana is irrelevant, hardly expansion. You said facts on alcohol was irrelevant, you said facts on marijuana were irrelevant, that's not expansion, you were stopping the debate from expanding beyond the one place where you can defend, which is that you believe it should not be accepted as a social norm.

ANALOGY TIME!!!

There are two people, person 1 and person 2.
Person 2 is trying to attack Person 1.
Person 2 is wildly throwing punches toward person 1 but is missing every single time.
Why should Person 1 (that's me :D) put up a defence?

That's cute, but you're forgetting that I do understand what your position is. You believe marijuana being accepted as a social norm would be harmful to society, my debate has been that it does not, your counter-debate has been that I don't understand your position. Now unless you changed your position (which we see below didn't happen) you are more like wimp lo from kung pow, you think losing is winning and yell out in triumph with every blow you recive.

I know exactly where I stand and I'm watching you hit everywhere but where I'm standing. I understand how you could be getting very frustrated by this and I sympothize but I'm not sure what else I can say.

Where do you stand?

Originally you said you believe that the government has no hand in what we do for recreation as long as it doesn't harm another individual, but that you don't think marijuana should be accepted into society. Unless this has changed I do indeed understand your stance.

I said "my" point. What you think I'm saying has proven by your own words to be not the same as what I am actually saying.

I will clarify however. For referance, you said:

Marijuana if legal would be a much safer and non-addictive alternative to alcohol, cigarettes, and caffeine (all of which kills thousands a year while marijuana in it's 12,000 year history has been attributed to less than 100 deaths) and you can't ignore the importance of this.

Yes I can ignore this.

I posted something similar in another thread recently.

It doesn't matter by what mechanism you fall off a cliff, you are still falling.

Duh, jesus I understand that, the debate is that marijuana is not bad for you. You are attempting to make marijuana out to be a form of downfall, I'm saying that there is no reason to suggest this as most marijuana smokers lead healthy and normal lives. A recreational habit is not a bad one, I don't know why you think they are.

I'm reminded of a job I had once, it was in a factory and I was helping to train a new guy. That day we were working on packing boxes of parts to be shipped out. After all the boxes were packed we had some parts left over that didn't get packed meaning the job had been done wrong (by the new guy). The new guy when faced with this said: "Aww, come on, out of all that we did there's only a couple that are wrong." Another, more seasoned employee responded: "We can't have any wrong, there needs to be zero mistakes!"

Oh so you're going the Reagan route. Our generation shouldn't have a crutch? Well while we're at it why don't we remove soccer, football, baseball, and basket ball, all of those are harmless recreational activities and are considerably more dangerous than a little spliff. Let's also remove video games, television, movies, and music, all of those useless arts and recreational activities, they're just mistakes!

It doesn't matter how much better marijuana is than something else, it's still a vice or in other words you're still falling off a cliff, or to refer to the story, there's still something wrong.

It's only a vice because you choose to classify it as such. It's a harmless activity.

That's right, I believe marijuana should remain socially unacceptable because for it to be otherwise is a risk. If you want to feel good about smoking marijuana then I'm sorry, you're not going to get my approval.

I didn't need your approval to smoke pot, thanks. Finally we're debating on the same grounds though. Look marijuana is only a vice in your eyes because you classify it as such, I have yet to see you elaborate as to the why it is bad only that it is bad.

Even if marijuana was legal the only purpose making is socially acceptable would serve is making users feel better about themselves.

And you know, not sending 900,000 innocent people to jail every year, that too.

Incorrect. I never said the government is right to outlaw marijuana

Okay, but you did say you don't want it legal because you don't want to legitimize it's use. I believe this to be wrong, you only think it's bad because of society saying it's bad. Marijuana is not a blight on society, people don't ruin their lives with it, many in fact enhance their lives. It's a stress reliever and stress causes many diseases and hinders recovery from them. If there's something that is really needed in society it is a safe stress reliever and marijuana is much safer than all of the legal alternatives.

At 11/30/08 06:19 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: I have no interest in debating any health effects of marijuana; it isn't relevant to my argument. Drop it already.

Yes it is, if you're going to label this drug as harmful to society you have to have at least some reason.

Not in the same paragraph, but I have. And that was a non argumentative statement because there was nothing to argue about. Seriously, drop it.

I'm not going to drop anything, start proving what you're saying instead of asking me for a surrender.

Have you listened to a word I've said? I'm not trying to tell people that they can't smoke marijuana and I'm not in support of the government doing it either, I've said this many times.

Yes, yet you're statement implied that it would be a bad thing to pursue happiness. I'm not the one making contradictory statements here mister.

So if only one person fails in life due to marijuana it's perfectly ok? And again, I am not trying to deny people the right to smoke marijuana if they want to.

No, but if only one person fails it's likely that marijuana is not the problem the problem is in the individual.

I have been explaining it.

The only thing you've said so far is that it'll screw up your life and that society doesn't look kindly on it, you haven't provided a shred of evidence to these claims, not even a hypothesis of how it could happen.

And still you don't listen and resort to childish and petty behavior... I mean no offence, just an observation.

You call me childish when in the previous posts you've made instead of debating you've resorted to using sarcasm to dodge putting up any kind of defense.

Don't tell me what I have or don't have to do; I know exactly what my view is.

Well you're still replying to my posts, yet you still haven't said why marijuana is bad for society, you came in here and made quite a few contradictory statements, then when asked to elaborate your response is basically "No! I don't wanna!" and then go on to call me childish.

I have, you just aren't listening.

Where? Where have you said a single thing that has any backing whatsoever? Everything you've even said so far is just a dodging of coming up with an actual defense.

I agree, I have not once argued that marijuana should be illegal. I only argue that it should not be encouraged by society and people like you telling them it's perfectly ok.

Yes, congratulations, you've grasped what the debate is about, now will you get on and defend your view on why it isn't perfectly ok?

Did that have a point?

To try and make you defend your view with an actual argument perhaps?

Partially. Marijuana isn't the sole cause of laziness however it's use can lead to or even catalyze it with other influences, which are not hard to find.

Marijuana isn't a cause of laziness, if you're going to make this claim you have to prove it. Man this argument is turning from actual debate of the subject and more on me trying to get you to participate.

Fine, I've never said otherwise and I don't care for the purposes of this debate, it's not relevant to my point.

How is the fact that it's a safe alternative to other forms of recreation not important to a debate on whether or not we should encourage it's use in society? I think it address the point pretty fucking directly.

I think there might be a typo in that sentence as it's not making much sense... I'll just respond based on what I think you meant.

I meant to say 'keep a safe form of recreation illegal'

Drop the societal argument already, the debate has moved on from there.

To where? To me attempting to get you to defend your argument?

I can clearly tell from the content of your posts and your constant misquotation of mine that you have no idea what my view is.

Your view is that the government should have no hand in what we are allowed to put into our bodies, but it's okay what the government is doing because you don't believe that marijuana use should be encouraged. I'm asking you to defend the viewpoint of why marijuana use should not be encouraged and you have spent 3 pages not putting up any defense and dodging the debate by saying that I don't understand you and then proceeding to use many lame and unnecessary sarcastic comments to fill what would be otherwise just straight up dodging.

Again, I mean no offence, just an observation.

Ad hominem attacks are not something I resort to regularly, but at this point your constant refusal to back up what you are saying while still responding is just irritating. I'm trying to have a debate on the subject, I'm not trying to speak to a wall.

At 11/30/08 04:35 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: I don't debate whether or not marijuana is bad for you because it's pointless, it would eventually just turn into a link war where neither of us actually say anything and just copy/paste from Wikipedia. Pointless.

Or you could actually look at the links and absorb information instead of ignoring them. You know the purpose of debating is to determine what is the correct information and what isn't, it only doesn't work if you don't participate, like you are now doing.

Again, the point that it is not accepted in society was relevant before but the debate has moved forward from there. I'm not talking about that any more beyond the fact that I think it is a good thing that it is not socially acceptable, and I haven't really brought that up recently.

You still haven't explained why it's a good thing why it isn't socially acceptable, you're hiding behind a non-argument to avoid confrontation on the subject.

Always the pursuit of pleasure isn't it. Lets all sit around and smoke a weed so we can feel better, truly a noble pursuit.

Everyone has the right to happiness, are you denying that happiness is a good thing? Are you really going to attempt to tell people that their lives should be devoid of it? Of course no one is saying it's a good idea to sit around and smoke weed all day, but to deny people the option of doing it in moderation is ridiculous and an attempt to stifle a humans right to happiness.

I wonder what some people haven't done in their lives because getting high was more important to them.

Look, if the majority of people in America were failing in life due to marijuana addiction this sentence might hold some value, but since there is nothing to suggest this it is simply a pointless statement to make. Nor is it right to deny one man a right because of the stupidity of his brother.

Listen, if you want to do something that could potentially screw up your life, fine, go right ahead.

Potentially screw up your life? How? Marijuana is not physically addictive, it will not kill you in the short-term nor the long term, quit ignoring the information presented to you so that you can keep babbling.

I don't agree with it but it's not my place to stop you. Just don't drag anyone down with you, especially not easily influenced and corruptible children.

Hahaha, think of the children! Come on, at least present some sort of argument instead of empty rhetoric. The easily corruptible childrens?! Oh god save them from this evil plant which you still have made no argument as to why it's bad in the first place, save them!

If you're not going to argue why marijuana is bad for society and instead just argue that it is bad you lose the argument you have to explain why it's bad for anyone to actually side with you saying it's bad.

Let's keep marijuana use out of sight and out of mind so this nation's youth have a better chance at bettering themselves and society.

You still have not made a single argument as to why marijuana can be a harm to a persons chances of success in life, or in short, this statement, like you're others, holds no water.

Let's let them choose for themselves when they are wise enough to do so without the influence of people like you telling them it's perfectly ok.

Let them have it legal so they don't have to be influenced by the uninformed person such as you telling them it's dangerous and will likely screw up their lives, when in reality there is no real reason to suggest this.

See, children have a tendency to over do things. Ever seen a kid get a hold of a virtually unlimited supply of candy? Let me tell you, it's not a pretty sight. They'll eat and eat without restraint until it's all gone or until their so sick that they throw up, then as soon as they feel better their back at it. I'm not talking about just 10 year olds; I've seen kids in their mid teens do the same thing. Some people never grow up and never learn self control, it becomes an addiction, physical or psychological, it doesn't matter.

If you're going to argue for the safety of children, you should know that by having marijuana illegal it is much easier for children to get. Most teens can get marijuana much easier than cigarettes or alcohol. Know why? Because drug dealers don't ask for ID.

Interesting fact, we learn laziness.

We learn laziness? Did you really just say that?

Tell me, who taught you to be lazy?

Because you clearly are too lazy to do any research on the subject and instead decide to parrot utter nonsense you heard from your DARE teachers.

Sometimes replace that drive with addictions and ultimately futile pursuits. That's just the way our society is unfortunately, I just don't think we need any help going down that path is all.

Okay so you're saying that marijuana is bad because lazy people might turn to it as an excuse for laziness? Wow, you do realize with that argument you acknowledge that marijuana isn't the cause of laziness (and it isn't) but simply that lazy people will often turn to marijuana, which in no way incriminates the usage of marijuana.

Of what benefit to society is marijuana?

It provides a safe form of recreation. I know you don't want to admit it, but people will always seek recreation. Whether it be sports, reckless activities, drugs, television, video games. Your attempt to remove recreation from society is ultimately pointless. Marijuana if legal would be a much safer and non-addictive alternative to alcohol, cigarettes, and caffeine (all of which kills thousands a year while marijuana in it's 12,000 year history has been attributed to less than 100 deaths) and you can't ignore the importance of this.

You'd let us keep a safe form of recreation so that people can continue to practice much more dangerous forms of recreation because of society.

I can respect a man with a different viewpoint of mine, even if we're arguing. But I cannot respect a man who refuses to defend his view, you sir are pathetic.

At 11/28/08 10:35 PM, dySWN wrote: It's especially funny because, judging from his cabinet picks, Obama's time will be four more years of the same old song and dance.

Yeah, I feel betrayed by the man I voted for before he's even gotten into office. Though I really mainly voted obama because of a severe dislike for the Mccain/palin ticket, I did still believe he was the lesser of two evils.

Vote Ron Paul 2012!

No, no we don't...

So these plants have psychoactive effects, they're bad to smoke as all smoke is bad, yet we don't outlaw them, and it's because there's no propaganda to create a negative image of them in society. Your logic is basically that since there is a bad image of marijuana in society, we should not encourage it's usage. The logic is truly absurd, you avoid debating whether or not marijuana is bad you simply stick to the fact that it's not accepted into society. You're like a lemming, if society told you to jump off a bridge you would consider it the socially acceptable thing to do and claim it was only responsible to do so.

At 11/30/08 10:17 AM, Freedomblades wrote::

List these medical porposes

I'll list the medical purposes...
Multiple Sclerosis and Irritable Bowel Syndrome
IBS I have personal experience with, I have been smoking for two years to combat IBS and it has worked better than anything the doctors have prescribed me.More info on MS
Dystonia (a movement disorder
Anecdotal evidence of it's use for Chron's disease
Fibromyalgia
General myths about marijuana debunked

The list goes on, but there's only so much time I want to devote to researching something I already know, it has many accepted medical uses.

Many people compare smoking to marijwana and they come to about par with the ciggerete being abit safer.

I can't believe people are still attempting to debate that marijuana has no medical value when 14 states in the union already have medical marijuana programs (California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Maryland, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont)

At 11/29/08 11:56 AM, JoS wrote:

At 11/29/08 12:44 AM, poxpower wrote: A healthy person has no reason to take pot every day.

Exactly. The medical uses for it are limited,

Not true, THC has been linked to killing off cancerous cells. Inhibiting cancer growth in the lungs mainly but also in other areas. Marijuana is also an expectorant, Marijuana smoke effectively dilates the airways to the lungs, the bronchi, opening them to allow more oxygen into the lungs. It also can be used to stop a mild asthma attack. Marijuana has many medicinal uses in fact.

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/200 08/

I'll have more links tomorrow when I'm not high and tired from work.

At 11/30/08 12:17 AM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: Update:

With all the water I drank, it got really intolerable really really fast.

I think I just took the longest piss of my life.

This was awesome. :D

Dude, you only lasted two hours. That's like a normal interval.

This is such an incredibly old joke that no one even comes into these threads expecting ladies, they just want to see what the joke is. Then it's usually really lame and they don't post and someone ends up pointing out the high view count and low post ratio, this thread is so predictable it hurts.