Van Nguyen

[byso]

lol...

agree to disagree?

You and I are too proud and arrogant to ever see eye to eye on something and once again, our pre-suppositions are getting in the way

Gees Mata, you could of saved us 2 days of crap if you come in earlier!

 

[Fluffy]

How in one post can you say you're against the death penalty and then say the punishment befits the crime?

Also, no, i'm not too worried about being banned you f-ing ****.

To the first point - simple - i never said that - but hey feel free to keep making stuff up about me. Dan said that i supported it - he was lying.

To the second point - i may well be a f-ing cnut but at least cnuts are useful unlike yourself unless i want to teach my 6 year old cousin how to call people names in the playground which is all you have offered in this thread and most threads so far.

Now i ask you this - how can you completely dismiss my figures because they are out of date and use support Dans figures like they are gospel whe they too are out of date. Neither figures are current, both are accurate in recent times. Secondly since dismissing my figures as out of date is your only arguement would that would mean that in 2002 i am right, so unless the laws have changed in the last 3 years then my arguement is correct on the theory that in 2002 it was true and cannot be diisproved until current accurate figures are given - this has not happened.

 

[Dan]

In 2002 you may have been correct but we didnt compare raod deaths just drug related deaths.

In 2003/4 you are incorrect 05 figures come out next year

 

[The Fonz]

[quote author=The Fonz]

How in one post can you say you're against the death penalty and then say the punishment befits the crime?

Also, no, i'm not too worried about being banned you f-ing ****.

To the first point - simple - i never said that - but hey feel free to keep making stuff up about me. Dan said that i supported it - he was lying.

To the second point - i may well be a f-ing cnut but at least cnuts are useful unlike yourself unless i want to teach my 6 year old cousin how to call people names in the playground which is all you have offered in this thread and most threads so far.

Now i ask you this - how can you completely dismiss my figures because they are out of date and use support Dans figures like they are gospel whe they too are out of date. Neither figures are current, both are accurate in recent times. Secondly since dismissing my figures as out of date is your only arguement would that would mean that in 2002 i am right, so unless the laws have changed in the last 3 years then my arguement is correct on the theory that in 2002 it was true and cannot be diisproved until current accurate figures are given - this has not happened.

[/quote]


You are correct to a point fluffy. This debate is going no where and cannot be proven either way.

But on the other hand you are incorrect. I never supported dan's stats. I only told you yours were out dated therefore inadmissible.

 

[Matabele]

Looks like I have an ally in the war against the Fluff Monster!

(Kidding Fluufy - good to have you back. Where have you been?)

 

[Matabele]

Several recent studies have linked youth marijuana use with depression, suicidal thoughts and schizophrenia:

Young people who use marijuana weekly have double the risk of developing depression.

Teens aged 12 to 17 who smoke marijuana weekly are three times more likely than non-users to have suicidal thoughts.
Marijuana use in some teens has been linked to increased risk for schizophrenia in later years.

A British study found that as many as one in four people may have a genetic profile that makes marijuana five times more likely to trigger psychotic disorders.

Evidence has recently emerged that some people's genetic make-up may predispose them to be particularly vulnerable to the effects of marijuana on mental health. For instance, a major study out of the Netherlands concluded that use of the drug "moderately increases" the risk of psychotic symptoms in young people but has "a much stronger effect" in those with evidence of predisposition.

"The nonchalance about marijuana in Europe and the U.S. is worrisome," said Neil McKeganey, Ph.D., Professor of Drug Misuse Research and Director, Centre for Drug Misuse Research, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland. "Marijuana is the first illegal drug that many young people use and teens don't view it as a serious drug, and when children are exposed only to advice from kids like themselves, the risks seem meaningless. We're starting to see marijuana in a new light given recent research into the connection between marijuana and mental illness."

 

[Dan]

Sounds like a pull quote right out of SMH.com.au

 

[Matabele]

My TGA brother is now on the case.

 

[Dan]

lol well when you have the actual papers and studies and not tabloid medicine then i will consider it. But the above sounds very much like a classic example of a news paper spouting crap

 

[Matabele]

Dan there are studies. :roll:

If you are to be consistent in your stance then the following applies:

1. Smoking does not cause lung cancer.
2. Alcohol does not impair driving.
3. Depression does not lead to suicide.

etc etc

 

[Dan]

Dan there are studies. :roll:

If you are to be consistent in your stance then the following applies:

1. Smoking does not cause lung cancer.
2. Alcohol does not impair driving.
3. Depression does not lead to suicide.

etc etc

in a way, nice try.

1 - this has been more than proven, medically and scientifically
2 - Alcohol doesnt impai your ability to drive, it impairs your ability to make fast decisions and hinders your co-ordination, which in effect do hinder driving ability. again well studied and proven both scientifically, medically and statistically
3 - Well the jury is still out on that one too!

 

[Matabele]

Can I have physical proof please?

What about a person who has never smoked but has lung cancer? Surely on account of your stance this rules out the possibility that smoking causes lung cancer?

Oh and uh, I know you're not quite at Zorba standards when it comes to media but the SMH is a broadsheet, not a tabloid.

 

[Dan]

1 - SMH is a broadsheet, yes but what you referred to was tabloid medicine, meaning it was half disected mixed information presented as fact.

2 - By your stance you are saying all things can have only one cause!
That means that depression in your book is only caused by marijuana.

Is there only one way to boil an egg?

 

[Matabele]

On the contrary Dan -you are trying to completely rule out a probability which is backed up by any number of statistical and impirical surveys in medical journals simply because it doesn't fit with your experience.

 

[Dan]

no that is completely incorrect. My initial argument and my argument still is that there is too much conflicting data on it. There is nothing yet conclusive and no current study under way trying to get a conclusive answer.

The fact that there is some data out there, that is contradicted elsewhere and that it conflicts with other data, makes me want to wait for conclusive evidence before I throw my eggs int hat basket.

That is the fundemental difference between you and I. You have a pre-supposition to believe in things, its the same with your religious beliefs, you have a pre-supposition and disposition to believe, which is what i said from day one of that debate, and I dont. that means I need more proof than you and cant take the "leap of faith" so to speak, I prefer a bridge under my feet

 

[Fro]

How many ways are there to boil an egg Dan?

 

[Dan]

3 that i know of

1 - in boiling water
2 - in an egg boiler (actually steams them)
3 - buried in hot coals

plus many more.

You can also soft boil, hard boil and medium boil an egg

 

[Matabele]

no that is completely incorrect. My initial argument and my argument still is that there is too much conflicting data on it. There is nothing yet conclusive and no current study under way trying to get a conclusive answer.

The fact that there is some data out there, that is contradicted elsewhere and that it conflicts with other data, makes me want to wait for conclusive evidence before I throw my eggs int hat basket.

That is the fundemental difference between you and I. You have a pre-supposition to believe in things, its the same with your religious beliefs, you have a pre-supposition and disposition to believe, which is what i said from day one of that debate, and I dont. that means I need more proof than you and cant take the \"leap of faith\" so to speak, I prefer a bridge under my feet

So in the 1950s, when the cigarette companies were muddying the waters on the lung cancer issue, you would have witheld judgement because there was "conflicting data".

You would also have been wrong.

In your case you'd have also kept smoking until definitive proof proferred and by then it may have been too late.

 

[Fro]

1 - Concur
2 - as you say is steam so not boiled.
3 - buried in hot coals is not boiled again its baked or cooked or something of that sort.

Boiled needs boiling water.

soft boiled, hard boiled, etc are degrees of boiling, not methods.

P.S. please dont take this seriously and arc up into one of your diatribes. was only meant to lighten the mood 🙂

 

[byso]

🙂