Re: Legalization of Drugs

[SilverPrince offline]

Ohey, I was right. How've you been, man?

Actually, I'm secretly Carth. But at any rate, I'm doing well. I'm in college now. And this is quite off-topic.

Um. Fun drug fact! The German pharmaceutical company Bayer - famous for aspirin - once owned the rights to the word "Heroin." They lost those rights after Germany lost World War I.

[Mewberries151]

As for SilverPrince, who I dearly hope is Lyoko422, There is a reason that the internet isn't seen as a reliable medium for things political. Anyone can post any dang thing. That's its blessing, and its curse. I'm so blasted tired of playing the "It's on the internet" game.

I am indeed the artist formerly known as Lyoko422. And while I understand your point, I would say not to completely disregard something as false until proven otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty, I always say. I mean, it seemed pretty legit from the get-go. But I'm off topic.

I would argue, except the fact that I don't have much to argue. Knifey, you might possibly have actually changed my opinions on legalization of non-marijuana drugs. Take pride. Internet arguments don't actually often change people's thoughts. Of course, there's still that irrational, non-fact-based OTHER DRUGS ARE BAD voice in my conscience that's holding me back. But I won't waste time trying to argue by that.

I will, however, still stand by my point that the current political reality will prevent most of these changes anyway.

Ohey, I was right. How've you been, man?

Stuff that looks legit and actually is can be two different things. At this point, I've personally decided (depending on the topic) to say heck with it and disbelieve most websites. There are a select few I will use, like factcheck.org and politifact, and snopes, and things like that, but yeah.

...Wow JF. I hope you never have to write a thesis paper because you will be well out of luck.

I'm sorry but that's incredibly short-sighted of you to just blow off an Internet source, purely because it's on the Internet. Magazines and newspapers now have entire articles and archives on the web. And suddenly, because it's in digital form, it's less factual?

What the heck is that?

Additionally, because I'm in classes that just discussed exactly this subject, teachers are now teaching and encouraging students to use RELIABLE ONLINE SOURCES. The Internet is maybe unreliable for political OPINIONS, yes, but for medical or clinical studies and peer-reviewed articles? Not if you know where to find reliable sources, which, by the way, are none of the websites you listed.

And to say that, "Oh...well doctors sometimes get it wrong," is like saying, "Well, scientists sometimes get it wrong, so I'm just not going to believe gravity works." Yes, they get it wrong. That's part of the point behind doing studies and research. Sometimes you find something new or that you're wrong. How in the WORLD does that disqualify well-researched and peer-reviewed articles?


On a non-rantier note, cool fun fact SP. I did not know that. >.>

[JesusFreak offline]

As for SilverPrince, who I dearly hope is Lyoko422, There is a reason that the internet isn't seen as a reliable medium for things political. Anyone can post any dang thing. That's its blessing, and its curse. I'm so blasted tired of playing the "It's on the internet" game.

I am indeed the artist formerly known as Lyoko422. And while I understand your point, I would say not to completely disregard something as false until proven otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty, I always say. I mean, it seemed pretty legit from the get-go. But I'm off topic.

I would argue, except the fact that I don't have much to argue. Knifey, you might possibly have actually changed my opinions on legalization of non-marijuana drugs. Take pride. Internet arguments don't actually often change people's thoughts. Of course, there's still that irrational, non-fact-based OTHER DRUGS ARE BAD voice in my conscience that's holding me back. But I won't waste time trying to argue by that.

I will, however, still stand by my point that the current political reality will prevent most of these changes anyway.

Ohey, I was right. How've you been, man?

Stuff that looks legit and actually is can be two different things. At this point, I've personally decided (depending on the topic) to say heck with it and disbelieve most websites. There are a select few I will use, like factcheck.org and politifact, and snopes, and things like that, but yeah.

...Wow JF. I hope you never have to write a thesis paper because you will be well out of luck.

It depends on the website.

I'm sorry but that's incredibly short-sighted of you to just blow off an Internet source, purely because it's on the Internet. Magazines and newspapers now have entire articles and archives on the web. And suddenly, because it's in digital form, it's less factual?

No, it just depends on the website. I probably didn't check the source well enough on the .pdf file, but I still stand by my opinion.

Additionally, because I'm in classes that just discussed exactly this subject, teachers are now teaching and encouraging students to use RELIABLE ONLINE SOURCES. The Internet is maybe unreliable for political OPINIONS, yes, but for medical or clinical studies and peer-reviewed articles? Not if you know where to find reliable sources, which, by the way, are none of the websites you listed.

Reliable Online sources yes. I just pulled things off the top of my head because I wanted to.

And to say that, "Oh...well doctors sometimes get it wrong," is like saying, "Well, scientists sometimes get it wrong, so I'm just not going to believe gravity works." Yes, they get it wrong. That's part of the point behind doing studies and research. Sometimes you find something new or that you're wrong. How in the WORLD does that disqualify well-researched and peer-reviewed articles?

When it comes to political issues, I don't treat doctors and scientists as an unimpeachable source. opinions (and grant money) gets in the way of actual research all the time. If it was a paper on, say, why panda bears don't like to reproduce or why there are so many types of cheese, that's different.

Soyah.

[Lani offline]

NEW SOLUTION:

Legalize everything and Mr. JF gets his own entire (physical, tangible) library (filled with good ol' books!) of GOOD HARD FACTS!!!!


Did it work? No? No. I guess not.


IN BEFORE LOCK!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLLOOLOOL GUYS LOOK AT MY USELESS POST

[JesusFreak offline]

IN BEFORE LOCK!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLLOOLOOL GUYS LOOK AT MY USELESS POST

Yeah, this DID get off topic, didn't it?

The moral of the stroy: I gotta be clear what I mean when I say "legalize". Feel free to blame me for the offtopicyness.

[MY85 offline]

In the world of JesusFreak...

Doctor says: Don't be gay, don't smoke!

JesusFreak: FACT!

Scientist presents his article (approved for publishing) on pdf format file on a reknown website:

JesusFreak: I disbelieve.

[JesusFreak offline]

In the world of JesusFreak...

Fake Doctor says: Don't be gay, don't smoke!

JesusFreak: Dur, Idk how to check sourcesFACT!
several years later
Scientist presents his article (approved for publishing) on pdf format file on a reknown website involved with politics:

JesusFreak: I disbelieve.

fix'd. Sorta.

[SilverPrince offline]

OK, as the creator of the thread, I'm going to say "Let's get back on topic, kthx." I would like for this thread to discuss the pros and cons of legalizing various drugs. We've gone on this "sources" tangent and it seems to be almost a Shut-Up-JF fest. Which isn't cool.

So, back on topic, and let's lay off these posts that amount to little more than "You're full of crap." If we can't do that, I will request that a mod or admin lock the thread. That is, if they don't decide to do it themselves.