I know i'm gonna regret this, but I just can't help myself.

[ravingdave]

It always amazes me that strong opinion trumps knowledge. We do get the government we deserve. Another pity.

???

The human animal is not rational Simon, it is rationalizing. The passions rule us far more than the pipsqueak weakling called "rationality." Uber-rational NTs of the type that populate this board tend to forget that, but we are only 10% of the human species.

Duane

Amen brother ! I have yet to see an emotional argument ever lose to a logical one. At least in terms of public opinion.


David

[MSimon]

It always amazes me that strong opinion trumps knowledge. We do get the government we deserve. Another pity.

???

The human animal is not rational Simon, it is rationalizing. The passions rule us far more than the pipsqueak weakling called "rationality." Uber-rational NTs of the type that populate this board tend to forget that, but we are only 10% of the human species.

Duane

True. And it is really worse than that because we are probably only 10% rational. The rational 10% is only 10% rational.

[pfrit]

Amen brother ! I have yet to see an emotional argument ever lose to a logical one. At least in terms of public opinion.


David

I can think of one off the top of my head. MAD. The emotional response was "Kill the Reds before they kill us!". The logical response was "Let's think about that one for a bit..." Granted, the fate of the species was riding on it...

[nuclearnoob]

If you want to avoid carcinogenic marijuana smoke, then eat it or use a vaporizer. Problem solved. We don't have to endlessly agonize over that issue that the article raised.

Whether canabinoids are bad for the brain or not is an open question but most studies have not been able to conclude that its bad. I know all kinds of people who smoke pot and many of them are highly intelligent and motivated people. Several of them have math and science PHDs from serious rigorous programs. Another runs a successful hedge fund. Enough already with the invidious stereotypes about lazy good for nothings who can't compete.

[ravingdave]

Amen brother ! I have yet to see an emotional argument ever lose to a logical one. At least in terms of public opinion.


David

I can think of one off the top of my head. MAD. The emotional response was "Kill the Reds before they kill us!". The logical response was "Let's think about that one for a bit..." Granted, the fate of the species was riding on it...

You should read the book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes. Especially the section on General Curtis Lemay.

Then consider the logical argument of wiping out the soviets ability to produce nuclear weapons BEFORE they could make them, as opposed to the emotional argument of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent soviets as a result.

The direction we took is all too well known, but if the Logical Curtis Lemay had been in charge, it would have turned out very differently.

Food for thought.


David

[ravingdave]

I have a friend that keeps feeding me articles like this that he runs across. I find it amusing to post that stuff here.


Pot smoking postal carrier busted for burning mail he was to lazy to deliver.


http://blogs.app.com/saywhat/2009/06/23 ... o-deliver/

Here's another one.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story ... river.html

Here's a quote.

"Tatarchuk told the court McIlwrick smokes marijuana to help him deal with pain from medical problems, and told the judge his client posed no danger to the community as long as he doesn't drive."




David

[pfrit]

The direction we took is all too well known, but if the Logical Curtis Lemay had been in charge, it would have turned out very differently.

Food for thought.


David

LeMay? I don't like to talk badly about a man of his accomplishments, but if he had been elected (and Wallace died) we would be still fighting World War Five. He was a believer in first strike nuclear saturation bombing. He wanted to nuke Cuba and Vietnam. Literally. The downside to LeMay in charge is truly frightening. I do not see LeMay's optimistic blindness to the downside of nuclear war to be logical. If war had been truly unavoidable, then yes I would have agreed with him. But logically war is never unavoidable.

[MSimon]

I have a friend that keeps feeding me articles like this that he runs across. I find it amusing to post that stuff here.


Pot smoking postal carrier busted for burning mail he was to lazy to deliver.


http://blogs.app.com/saywhat/2009/06/23 ... o-deliver/

Here's another one.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story ... river.html

Here's a quote.

"Tatarchuk told the court McIlwrick smokes marijuana to help him deal with pain from medical problems, and told the judge his client posed no danger to the community as long as he doesn't drive."

David

And the people who get in serious trouble with alcohol?

BTW aren't there laws against stupidity? When stupidity is outlawed only outlaws will be stupid.

[ravingdave]

The direction we took is all too well known, but if the Logical Curtis Lemay had been in charge, it would have turned out very differently.

Food for thought.


David

LeMay? I don't like to talk badly about a man of his accomplishments, but if he had been elected (and Wallace died) we would be still fighting World War Five. He was a believer in first strike nuclear saturation bombing. He wanted to nuke Cuba and Vietnam. Literally. The downside to LeMay in charge is truly frightening. I do not see LeMay's optimistic blindness to the downside of nuclear war to be logical. If war had been truly unavoidable, then yes I would have agreed with him. But logically war is never unavoidable.

I don't know. From what i've read, Lemay makes a good case that the USA would've defanged Russia, and prevented anyone else in the world from challenging US supremacy in Nuclear Weapons.

LeMay was absolutely heartless in his successful bombing campaign against Japan, and the only reason that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were available to target with atomic bombs was because LeMay was told not to destroy them so that they could serve as an example.

LeMay also was in charge of the Berlin Airlift which was obviously successful.

To put it simply, LeMay was in a position to know what was feasible and what wasn't, and he had a track record of absolute success.

I suspect LeMay's plans would have worked out exactly the way he said they would, and it was only because most people couldn't stand the stomach churning idea of killing off hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of innocent people, that LeMay was never allowed to go through with any of his plans regarding atomic weapons.

As it is, LeMay came very near to committing treason, and may actually have crossed the line, but not in a provable way. He kept everything at a hair trigger, and was constantly TRYING to start a war with Russia. He firmly believed that the US would win decisively, and that we were far better off starting the war early on, than waiting until the Russians were big enough that they could seriously hurt us.


David

[ravingdave]

I have a friend that keeps feeding me articles like this that he runs across. I find it amusing to post that stuff here.


Pot smoking postal carrier busted for burning mail he was to lazy to deliver.


http://blogs.app.com/saywhat/2009/06/23 ... o-deliver/

Here's another one.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story ... river.html

Here's a quote.

"Tatarchuk told the court McIlwrick smokes marijuana to help him deal with pain from medical problems, and told the judge his client posed no danger to the community as long as he doesn't drive."

David

And the people who get in serious trouble with alcohol?

I believe this is a variation of "tu quoque" fallacy. Yeah, Alcohol results in the same sort of problem.

BTW aren't there laws against stupidity? When stupidity is outlawed only outlaws will be stupid.

Laws against stupidity seeks to outlaw that which cannot be outlawed, which is in fact an example of stupidity. (which by it's own premise, ought to be outlawed ! )


No, stupid people will always be stupid. That's why other people try to limit their capability to cause damage to others.

Years ago I read a story about a Scientist that was working on the "Q" bomb, which was FAR more powerful than the biggest Hydrogen bomb, and could wipe out a continent with one explosion. The Scientist happened to be at home tending to his retarded son when a man stopped by to beseech him to give up his work on the amazingly destructive bomb. The scientist was unswayed. Finally the Visitor asked for a drink of water. The Scientist went into the kitchen to get it for him, and when he came back, the man was gone. The Scientist then noticed that his retarded son was playing with something. As the Scientist looked closer, he noticed it was a GUN !

The scientist carefully approached his son, soothingly telling him to relax, and keep calm. As the Scientist approached closely enough, he reached out and took the gun from his son. He looked at the gun's cylinder and saw that it was fully loaded. He then started cursing the strange visitor who must have left the gun.

He exclaimed, "What kind of person would give a loaded gun to an idiot?"





David

[pfrit]

To put it simply, LeMay was in a position to know what was feasible and what wasn't, and he had a track record of absolute success.
I suspect LeMay's plans would have worked out exactly the way he said they would, and it was only because most people couldn't stand the stomach churning idea of killing off hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of innocent people, that LeMay was never allowed to go through with any of his plans regarding atomic weapons.

David

Have you ever looked into US plans for a strategic nuclear attack on USSR of the period? We aren't talking megatons dropped. We are talking Gigatons dropped. I am not a nuclear winter alarmist, but that could have been an End of Life Event. Even if the USSR didn't fire even one missile, I doubt that the fallout would have allowed for agriculture anywhere in the Northern hemisphere. LeMay was into saturation bombing. Like multiple megaton bombs on each crossroad. And as far as it goes, he was correct. A decapitation strike would have to be so messy to ensure success that it would be indistinguisable from saturation bombing. And we are not talking millions dead. We are talking hundreds of millions as an integeral part of the plan. That was the "assured" part of MAD.

[MSimon]

That's why other people try to limit their capability to cause damage to others.

So do prohibition laws make it easier or harder for the stupid to get their drugs?

And of course how stupid do you need to be to back a law that finances criminals and terrorists and makes it easier for kids to get pot than beer?

George Orwell: "some things are so stupid, so devoid of reason and sense, that only an intellectual would believe them."

We did not end alcohol prohibition to solve our alcohol problem. We ended it to solve the problems caused by prohibition.

You know it is entirely possible that I am totally mistaken and the police can solve medical problems. It is just totally lame of me to miss the evidence of their effectiveness.

[ravingdave]

To put it simply, LeMay was in a position to know what was feasible and what wasn't, and he had a track record of absolute success.
I suspect LeMay's plans would have worked out exactly the way he said they would, and it was only because most people couldn't stand the stomach churning idea of killing off hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of innocent people, that LeMay was never allowed to go through with any of his plans regarding atomic weapons.

David

Have you ever looked into US plans for a strategic nuclear attack on USSR of the period? We aren't talking megatons dropped. We are talking Gigatons dropped. I am not a nuclear winter alarmist, but that could have been an End of Life Event. Even if the USSR didn't fire even one missile, I doubt that the fallout would have allowed for agriculture anywhere in the Northern hemisphere. LeMay was into saturation bombing. Like multiple megaton bombs on each crossroad. And as far as it goes, he was correct. A decapitation strike would have to be so messy to ensure success that it would be indistinguisable from saturation bombing. And we are not talking millions dead. We are talking hundreds of millions as an integeral part of the plan. That was the "assured" part of MAD.

It depends on what time period we are talking about. Curtis LeMay was always for going in early. (Right after world war II) Had We done this, it would have minimized the casualties as opposed to waiting until the late fifties, when the Russians could hit back.

Another Book by Richard Rhodes, "Dark Sun, The making of the Hydrogen Bomb" details the Russian atomic bomb program, and it appears that every day the Russian scientists would wake up dreading to see US bombers coming over the horizon to obliterate them.

Even the Russians thought we were foolish to let them develop the atomic bomb.


David

[ravingdave]

That's why other people try to limit their capability to cause damage to others.

So do prohibition laws make it easier or harder for the stupid to get their drugs?

And of course how stupid do you need to be to back a law that finances criminals and terrorists and makes it easier for kids to get pot than beer?

George Orwell: "some things are so stupid, so devoid of reason and sense, that only an intellectual would believe them."

We did not end alcohol prohibition to solve our alcohol problem. We ended it to solve the problems caused by prohibition.

You know it is entirely possible that I am totally mistaken and the police can solve medical problems. It is just totally lame of me to miss the evidence of their effectiveness.

A medical problem caused by the absence of a Plant Toxin (designed to kill or disable it's predators) in someone's bloodstream?


I've noticed for years that people have a tendency to "Cubby hole" certain concepts and ideas, when nature doesn't really do that.

An example is how we regard Physics,Chemistry, Biology, etc. as separate disciplines, when in reality, Everything is just an unbroken continuation of physics. It has long been my opinion, that "Medical" experts are calling a lot of stuff "diseases, or disorders", that are actually within the normal scope of the human spectrum.

ADHD, for example. Bi-Polar, for another.

Yeah, people are born with genetic variations that make them more or less susceptible to various conditions, and chemicals, but this does not make them "Sick", or "Abnormal." It just means they don't fit the general idea of how people are supposed to act.

So people can take various substances and the substances Alter how they interact with the world. Does this mean they are now Normal ?

No, it means that when they take these substances, they act more like other people (perhaps a majority) think they should act.

The show "Friends" had an episode where Phoebe was dating a guy everyone loved because he was such fun to be around. He had one problem though. He stayed DRUNK all of the time. He was always drinking some sort of liquor, and everyone was worried about him, so they talked him into quitting.

Lo and behold, after he quit drinking, he was the most boring person that any of them had ever seen. Eventually, they urged him to start drinking again. (I actually have some friends like that.)


So yeah, some people are more likable, and function better when they are on some sort of intoxicant. This does not mean they are sick (have a medical condition) or that they need medicine. It does not mean that there is anything wrong with them.

Even if some people want to "cubbyhole" it that way.


David

[MSimon]

A medical problem caused by the absence of a Plant Toxin (designed to kill or disable it's predators) in someone's bloodstream?

Your body's proper functioning depends on analogs of those plant "toxins" in sufficient quantity.

In fact the prejudice against cannabis delayed the discovery of the CB1 receptor by at least 10 years and possibly as many as 30 years. The CB system is one of the most important in the brain. There is also a CB2 system that is extensive in muscles.

All very important biological systems that are being inadequately researched due to prejudice.

As some one pointed out recently: man does not live by reason. He lives by reasonableness. Go along to get along.

The times they are a changin.