Haha, the fact that Varg, of all people, should sound like black women screaming is hilarious. :lol:

Ok, there you go:

[url]http://www.mediafire.com/?9ilpymy1te1[/url]

Four tl;dr articles in one easy package.

Yeah, you're smart, Vince. Give your two cents.

[QUOTE=guitrguy;15608611]There is no real testing being done on the influence on Marijuana and its influence on cognitive response[/QUOTE]

Hahaha. Really, are you serious?

Riva's already got a bunch apparently but there are other scientific articles I just pulled up if you are unsatisfied with Riva's.

EDIT: Hey, can't go wrong with psychopharmacology.

Well all I see is people saying driving high is ok, outline the premise of this debate and I will give my thoughts.

[QUOTE=Nostalgia;15608659]Yeah dude. I got high yesterday in the morning and I listened to Hvis Lyset Tar Oss. When Varg's vocals came in I swear it sounded like a bunch of black women screaming. That's what I thought was going on throughout the whole song.

When the keyboards enter I felt like I was floating too. It was weird.[/QUOTE]

Hahaha, that is so ridiculously oarsome.

[QUOTE=Spat Out Sexy Men;15608700]Driving high is a good idea. Prove me wrong![/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.mediafire.com/?9ilpymy1te1[/url]

I asked for proof not speculation. There is speculation on both sides. I've smoke for years now, I've smoked and drove for most of those years. Then again I've learned how to deal with a high and I smoke in moderation.

Don't take my argument out of context. I'm not saying its a good idea, but seem to think feed into and absolutist mentality.

[QUOTE=guitrguy;15608713]I asked for proof not speculation. There is speculation on both sides. I've smoke for years now, I've smoked and drove for most of those years. Then again I've learned how to deal with a high and I smoke in moderation.[/QUOTE]

EDITED BEFORE I EVEN POSTED: Never mind, clearly I am arguing with a brick wall savant.

The only time I ever really had to drive high was when I still lived at home. Now that I am in my own place, I have no need to.

Jason: I am not saying its a good idea, but acting like the minute you take a hit of pot impairs you from driving is utterly retarded.

[QUOTE=Spat Out Sexy Men;15608718]This evidence is all theoretical. Crash a car and I'll believe you.[/QUOTE]

Whats your problem? I'd appreciate it if you acted like a mod.

Dude SOP is like the biggest troll on this forum.

EDIT: Oh, and fag.

[QUOTE=Spat Out Sexy Men;15608700]Driving high is a good idea. Prove me wrong![/QUOTE]
Is that really it? Ugh.

Ok well lets start from the premise that smoking marijuana is done to alter how your mind perceives the universe temporarily. Lets next examine the demographic most likely to drive high. Teenagers. Males. Oh good, already the most dangerous age group driving. Next, if in fact you are in an altered mind state as one would imagine you are if you are using the drug, you are in an altered state of mind whilst driving. This is not inherently bad. However, unless I see evidence that smoking marijuana improves concentration, reaction times, and depth perception, I will go so far as to assume it does none of these miraculous things. So, at best we have the most accident-susceptible demographic behind the wheel of a car, that's strike one. Strike two is anecdotal evidence, but I have known many many smokers in my life, and every single one i can think of has done at least one really stupid thing that they thought was funny because they were high. One stupid thing behind the wheel is too many unless you're driving in the middle of your farm in texas or something. Final strike comes from the counter argument itself. Regardless of whether you think you can deal with a high, the only way to be sure you know how to deal with a high while driving is to drive high.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument that begins with "well you can deal with _____ dangerous act after you do it a few times."

[QUOTE=guitrguy;15608747]Jason: I am not saying its a good idea, but acting like the minute you take a hit of pot impairs you from driving is utterly retarded.



Whats your problem? I'd appreciate it if you acted like a mod.[/QUOTE]

You know what else is retarded... vehicular manslaughter.

Smoking down to relax with music and movies is not retarded because you can't kill anybody operating a stereo or television sitting on your as[font=verdana]s[/font].

lol vince

[QUOTE=Jom;15608795]You know what else is retarded... vehicular manslaughter.[/QUOTE]
You're proving my point.

Jom, did I mention that your avatar brightens my day?

[QUOTE=Spat Out Sexy Men;15608805]Vince gets the sarcasm award.[/QUOTE]
I figured you were being sarcastic but I also figured that was probably the premise based on the posting I saw so meh.

I hate my avatar, Dave. :( But I love yours! :)

[QUOTE=guitrguy;15608809]You're proving my point.[/QUOTE]

You've been trying to make a point? All you're doing is using the person-who phenomenon to try to validate your argument but everybody with an education knows how stupid that is.

Most of you are aware that many conclusions made in medicine are based on probabilistic trends and are not predictions of absolute certainty. Example: smoking causes lung cancer and a hoard of other health problems. There are volumes of medical evidence that d0cuments this quite clearly! Yet, will non-smokers be free from lung cancer, and does every person who smokes get lung cancer? Duh, most people know that these implications do not follow exactly.

Instead, the relationship is probabilistic.

Medicine can tell us that more people in a group of smokers will die of lung cancer than a group of non-smokers in equivalent number. But can it tell us which ones will die? No. The relationship is probabilistic and doesn't hold in every case.

Yet, how many times have we seen a non-smoker tell a smoking friend to quit and cite all these medical reasons for doing so, and then having the smoker go, "Ah, come on, look at ol' Joe Schmoe over there! Three packs a day since he was 18 and he's 81 and looking great!"

The blatantly obvious inference here that the non-smoker is supposed to draw up is that, somehow, Joe Schmoe completely invalidates the relationship.

It is infuriating how often this ploy works on people, but it reflects an obvious failure to understand the laws of statistics. If people think that a single example can invalidate a law, then they must feel the law should hold in every case.

Basically, there will always be a few "persons-who" go against the grain.

Based on research in 1991, only 5% of men who are smokers make it to age 85. This means that 95% of all men are either non-smokers or used to smoke and then quit. Continuous smoking remarkably shortens lives... yet some smokers make it to age 85!

The ubiquitous "person-who" statistic is pulled out of a person's as[font=verdana]s[/font] when confronted with hard statistical evidence that contradicts a previously-held belief. So, it could be argued that people actually know better and simply use the "person-who" statistic as a technique to invalidate facts that go against their opinions. Yet, the argument falls flat for two reasons: a) it's a dreadful debating strategy, and b) people don't understand statistical laws.

EDIT: obviously, you can apply this phenomenon to this silly debate if you have a couple brain cells... but hey, I'm not a hand-holder.

"You hear that, Joe? The Scientific Method: Solving Problems!"

[QUOTE=Spat Out Sexy Men;15608828]Don't worry Vince, you always win the best argument so far award. But that one's not as much fun.[/QUOTE]

Oh ok well that works for me.



Jom: I can sum up your whole post in 3 characters: N=1


But points for ranting for a few paragraphs :D

edit: must spread :(

JOM FU[font=verdana]C[/font]KING WINS 1000000 INTERNETS

hahah

I was just typing "cain'd"

i will counter and put an end to jom's argument with your mom

I counter your counter with a your mum's face.

LarsAgi'd

DAMN YOU GUYS STOP DISTRACTING ME FROM MY PAPER

I'm writing a paper on Algeria. WHO THE **** CARES ABOUT ALGERIA

I hate when people want to do all this nonprofit stuff in foreign countries to "help those in need" and all this.

You say I act like I want to be a mod. Well, based on the actions of people like you, being a mod isn’t something I would wish on anyone. Being a mod should be a symbol of contribution, commitment, and overall excellence in the usage of either the forums or Sputnik.

So, no. I hate to burst your bubble. I don’t want power. I don’t want a reward. I’m just a victim of the fact that I’m too damn nice of a person in real life, and that carries over to the internet. I see no reason to not extend my professional courtesy to not only mx himself, but to everyone else on the site. Whether they’re an admin, a mod, or someone who joined five minutes ago, it’s the same result. You wanted an honest answer, and that’s as blatantly honest a one as I can give. I’m sorry for trying to not be an asshole on the internet.

I'm in a class that's all about why it's the developed world's fault that there are countries and people "in need"

Pfft

I know, I mean Algeria has gold mines and is famous for its desert archers, in fact units of this type trained here get a +1 honour bonus. So Medieval: Total War tells me.

I'm writing about china's one child policy

[QUOTE=Jom;15608850]You've been trying to make a point? All you're doing is using the person-who phenomenon to try to validate your argument but everybody with an education knows how stupid that is.[/QUOTE]My point is similar to that of alcohol. Amount X of alcohol affect to different degrees and extents to different people. The same thing Applies to marijuana.
[QUOTE]
Most of you are aware that many conclusions made in medicine are [QUOTE]based on probabilistic trends and are not predictions of absolute certainty. Example: smoking causes lung cancer and a hoard of other health problems. There are volumes of medical evidence that d0cuments this quite clearly! Yet, will non-smokers be free from lung cancer, and does every person who smokes get lung cancer? Duh, most people know that these implications do not follow exactly.[/QUOTE]Thats my point, so being absolutist is retarded.
[QUOTE]
Instead, the relationship is probabilistic.

Medicine can tell us that more people in a group of smokers will die of lung cancer than a group of non-smokers in equivalent number. But can it tell us which ones will die? No. The relationship is probabilistic and doesn't hold in every case.[/QUOTE]The connection is very different and much more complex when brain chemistry comes into play. Making neurological conclusions based off of testing mice is stupid. No matter what happens in those experiments because you can not accurately apply those result to the humans, unless you test on humans.

[QUOTE]Yet, how many times have we seen a non-smoker tell a smoking friend to quit and cite all these medical reasons for doing so, and then having the smoker go, "Ah, come on, look at ol' Joe Schmoe over there! Three packs a day since he was 18 and he's 81 and looking great!"[/QUOTE]There is a difference between assuming risk and being stupid.

[QUOTE]The blatantly obvious inference here that the non-smoker is supposed to draw up is that, somehow, Joe Schmoe completely invalidates the relationship.[/QUOTE]I'm not trying to say that there is no validity. I am basically been arguing on the behalf of moderation.

[QUOTE]It is infuriating how often this ploy works on people, but it reflects an obvious failure to understand the laws of statistics. If people think that a single example can invalidate a law, then they must feel the law should hold in every case.
[/QUOTE]In the same sense your are trying to invalidate my stance, when we both agree on the relative nature of the original argument.

[QUOTE]Basically, there will always be a few "persons-who" go against the grain.

Based on research in 1991, only 5% of men who are smokers make it to age 85. This means that 95% of all men are either non-smokers or used to smoke and then quit. Continuous smoking remarkably shortens lives... yet some smokers make it to age 85![/QUOTE]That assumed risk and has nothing to with brain activity and psychoactive chemicals.

[QUOTE]The ubiquitous "person-who" statistic is pulled out of a person's as[font=verdana]s[/font] when confronted with hard statistical evidence that contradicts a previously-held belief. So, it could be argued that people actually know better and simply use the "person-who" statistic as a technique to invalidate facts that go against their opinions. Yet, the argument falls flat for two reasons: a) it's a dreadful debating strategy, and b) people don't understand statistical laws.
[/QUOTE]I'm sorry but you can't call a relative idea fact. When I say relative in me the extenuating circumstances that people love to drop in order to make a point.
[QUOTE]EDIT: obviously, you can apply this phenomenon to this silly debate if you have a couple brain cells... but hey, I'm not a hand-holder.

"You hear that, Joe? The Scientific Method: Solving Problems!"[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the ad hominem


Now lets come back from that tangent, and refute my moderation stance.

[QUOTE=guitrguy;15608998]

Now lets come back from that tangent, and refute my moderation stance.[/QUOTE]

No, you need to respond to my posting of four articles, only one of which has anything to do with mice.

[QUOTE=Riva;15609037]No, you need to respond to my posting of four articles, only one of which has anything to do with mice.[/QUOTE]

You have to give me time to read the articles. Quite frankly, I'm not doing it tonight. I'll do it, but the ad hominem attacks have irked me, and can't say I'll be able to give it a fair read.

[I][COLOR="Pink"][size=+7]MICE, YOU SAY?[/size][/COLOR][/I]

Of Mice and Lim

You want an honest answer about why I come to this forum? I come to enjoy [size=7]mice[/size]lf

[I][COLOR="Magenta"]The Mouse That Roared[/COLOR][/I]

When the mouse's away, the large bundle of sticks will play.

[QUOTE=Spat Out Sexy Men;15609093]My post wasn't even aimed at you, you just happened to post at the same time.[/QUOTE]

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.