Election results
please dont even get me started on the intelligent design bullshit, which has nothing to do with my opinion anyway. My opinion is based on the need for survival of our western society. Drugabuse is one of the many things that can contribute to its downfall.
Other societies seem to be having less of a problem with it. So maybe our society and system is not fit for existance? Maybe we are volontarily accepting our demise because we are to eager to excuse everything and find a politically correct way to deal with it.
Anyway, once we are gone, others will take over and it is the others that I am worried about because their values are usually not what I have in mind for the future of my offspring (e.g. fundamentalists religions, or dictatorships).
Other societies seem to be having less of a problem with it. So maybe our society and system is not fit for existance? Maybe we are volontarily accepting our demise because we are to eager to excuse everything and find a politically correct way to deal with it.
Anyway, once we are gone, others will take over and it is the others that I am worried about because their values are usually not what I have in mind for the future of my offspring (e.g. fundamentalists religions, or dictatorships).
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
I will agree with you, MSimon, that Skip isn't arguing rationally any more. And so I don't know that there's much more to say. I also find it ironic that he calls me, a centrist, and you, a staunch rightie, "ideologically infested." Yeah, we're just a couple of rabid liberal radicals having a field day. Yeah, that's it. Couldn't be that we're arguing from facts. No. If Skip disagrees with somebody, it has to be because they're crazy.
Common sense would tell you that!
Well I'll just have to re-evaluate my position, when faced with incontrovertible logic of this nature.
Mike "Still a Card Carrying Member of the Blinder-wearing Masses" Holmes
P.S. again, not that I've at all tried to downplay the seriousness of this issue, as Skip implies, but somehow his hysteria about it being the downfall of western society reminds me of an episode of South Park. The Native Americans give the people of South Park blankets that are infested with Avian Influenza, in an attempt to get revenge (and their land back) for the genocide of their people through small-pox. At one point Stan's father calls Stan over and says, "I have to tell you all about our history, so we can pass our culture on. After all, soon, only 97% of us will be left."
Common sense would tell you that!
Well I'll just have to re-evaluate my position, when faced with incontrovertible logic of this nature.
Mike "Still a Card Carrying Member of the Blinder-wearing Masses" Holmes
P.S. again, not that I've at all tried to downplay the seriousness of this issue, as Skip implies, but somehow his hysteria about it being the downfall of western society reminds me of an episode of South Park. The Native Americans give the people of South Park blankets that are infested with Avian Influenza, in an attempt to get revenge (and their land back) for the genocide of their people through small-pox. At one point Stan's father calls Stan over and says, "I have to tell you all about our history, so we can pass our culture on. After all, soon, only 97% of us will be left."
Last edited by Mike Holmes on Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am all about facts and science, however sometimes facts are twisted and broken out of context to support a certain believe system. Be it right or left, both sides have ideologies that are wrong and have lead to disregard for actual facts in favor our politically correct "studies" that twist facts in a way that makes them appear favorable for a certain ideology.
This is clearly the case in the things you have listed here.
One last question: Have you guys ever been addicted to anything? Even cigarettes? I am just curious because you guys are talking like you know it all and have seen it all.
Further, you are the ones that should stay in your field, since biology is mine!
This is clearly the case in the things you have listed here.
One last question: Have you guys ever been addicted to anything? Even cigarettes? I am just curious because you guys are talking like you know it all and have seen it all.
Further, you are the ones that should stay in your field, since biology is mine!
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
Skip, not that it's any of your business (I did say that I'd rather not discuss it, and you seemed to agree at some point before whipping out your scathing nicotine addiction), but, no, I've never been addicted to a substance. Some activities, possibly, yes, such as posting to online fora. But, no, no substance abuse. Personally.
But that's not to say that I have no experience with addiction. I won't go into who, as I'm not going to betray the trust of the individuals in question to satisfy you. But you'll have to just accept that I've had plenty of experience. Heck, the whole state for alcohol, as I've said. but lots of other substances as well, and some very bad addictions from them. I knew two people who are dead now, because of their addictions.
Now that I've said this, I feel I have to give you an education in logic, which you seem to be sorely lacking in. Here are several logical fallacies that you seem to enjoy being engaged in:
Argumentum Ad Hominem - attack on the man. Means that instead of debating an idea, you attack the person who promotes the idea. This is especially disingenuos when you don't actually know thing one about the person who your attacking. But even somebody who is totally without personal experience here has a voice, if their ideas are sound. Attack the idea, not the person presenting it.
Straw Man - Presenting an argument as if the opponent had presented it, jsut to knock the argument down so that the opponent looks foolish. For instance, trying to imply that we're suggesting that drugs be given to children or such. I explicitly denied that anyone would do that, and then asked that you treat us better. You did it again. Shame on you.
Argumentum Ad Authoritah! - Appeal to authority. Saying, "I'm in the field, so I must know better." Because somebody is in the field doesn't mean that they can't be wrong. Because somebody is not in the field doesn't mean that they can't be right. Attack the argument, not the credentials.
Then there's the one where, presented with evidence, you discard it because you claim it's biased, before you even look at it. Or, in your case, even consider the source. In my case I deliberately chose sources that have a bias on your side, so that they couldn't be impeached in this way. Yet you still claim bias.
I could go on and on. It's quite obvious that you've never had any training in debate, nor ever even seen one. Much less actually participated in one.
Now you'll probably tell me that all of this is some sort of ivory-tower logic that only academics understand, and it really doesn't have any bearing on reality. I don't know what to tell you. If you don't buy into logic, then you're never going to convince anyone but the ignorant who already believe your points. It's almost Limbaughian (an opiate addict!).
Mike
But that's not to say that I have no experience with addiction. I won't go into who, as I'm not going to betray the trust of the individuals in question to satisfy you. But you'll have to just accept that I've had plenty of experience. Heck, the whole state for alcohol, as I've said. but lots of other substances as well, and some very bad addictions from them. I knew two people who are dead now, because of their addictions.
Now that I've said this, I feel I have to give you an education in logic, which you seem to be sorely lacking in. Here are several logical fallacies that you seem to enjoy being engaged in:
Argumentum Ad Hominem - attack on the man. Means that instead of debating an idea, you attack the person who promotes the idea. This is especially disingenuos when you don't actually know thing one about the person who your attacking. But even somebody who is totally without personal experience here has a voice, if their ideas are sound. Attack the idea, not the person presenting it.
Straw Man - Presenting an argument as if the opponent had presented it, jsut to knock the argument down so that the opponent looks foolish. For instance, trying to imply that we're suggesting that drugs be given to children or such. I explicitly denied that anyone would do that, and then asked that you treat us better. You did it again. Shame on you.
Argumentum Ad Authoritah! - Appeal to authority. Saying, "I'm in the field, so I must know better." Because somebody is in the field doesn't mean that they can't be wrong. Because somebody is not in the field doesn't mean that they can't be right. Attack the argument, not the credentials.
Then there's the one where, presented with evidence, you discard it because you claim it's biased, before you even look at it. Or, in your case, even consider the source. In my case I deliberately chose sources that have a bias on your side, so that they couldn't be impeached in this way. Yet you still claim bias.
I could go on and on. It's quite obvious that you've never had any training in debate, nor ever even seen one. Much less actually participated in one.
Now you'll probably tell me that all of this is some sort of ivory-tower logic that only academics understand, and it really doesn't have any bearing on reality. I don't know what to tell you. If you don't buy into logic, then you're never going to convince anyone but the ignorant who already believe your points. It's almost Limbaughian (an opiate addict!).
Mike
OK Skip,
Since Mike is being nice I will try once more.
So here is my question for you Skip: what is the role of the amygdala in addiction? Tell me what you know and we will go from there.
==
Mike,
It does drive other righties nuts that I don't spew the party line on drugs and addiction but base my position on science. The National Institute Of Drug Addiction (NIDA) is not some radical liberal source of information on the body/brain and drugs. They absolutely believe in drug prohibition. And yet the science is so compelling that they have to admit that addiction is a function of genetics and "environmental factors". Now if they came straight out and said that the environmental factor was trauma it would blow their whole case for prohibition. In any case I figured out the genetics link several years before the NIDA did and I did it all from open sources available on the internet. Eventually when the weight of evidence is overwhelming they will admit the trauma factor as well.
There is all kinds of nonsense going on because prohibition. For instance the CB1 receptor, one of the most prevalent in the brain, was discovered much later than other receptors because prohibition prevented the use of the chemicals necessary to discover it. It was found by an Israeli scientist, Dr. Raphael Mechoulam. That is because the Israelis are more interested in learning stuff than maintaining prohibition.
And Skip, that is another avenue for your research. Dr. Raphael Mechoulam and the CB1 receptor. I'm not going to give you any links. Find your own trusted sources since you don't trust any of mine enough to even give me the courtesy of checking them out. Google is your friend.
Since Mike is being nice I will try once more.
So here is my question for you Skip: what is the role of the amygdala in addiction? Tell me what you know and we will go from there.
==
Mike,
It does drive other righties nuts that I don't spew the party line on drugs and addiction but base my position on science. The National Institute Of Drug Addiction (NIDA) is not some radical liberal source of information on the body/brain and drugs. They absolutely believe in drug prohibition. And yet the science is so compelling that they have to admit that addiction is a function of genetics and "environmental factors". Now if they came straight out and said that the environmental factor was trauma it would blow their whole case for prohibition. In any case I figured out the genetics link several years before the NIDA did and I did it all from open sources available on the internet. Eventually when the weight of evidence is overwhelming they will admit the trauma factor as well.
There is all kinds of nonsense going on because prohibition. For instance the CB1 receptor, one of the most prevalent in the brain, was discovered much later than other receptors because prohibition prevented the use of the chemicals necessary to discover it. It was found by an Israeli scientist, Dr. Raphael Mechoulam. That is because the Israelis are more interested in learning stuff than maintaining prohibition.
And Skip, that is another avenue for your research. Dr. Raphael Mechoulam and the CB1 receptor. I'm not going to give you any links. Find your own trusted sources since you don't trust any of mine enough to even give me the courtesy of checking them out. Google is your friend.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
And Skip,
Since I'm still in my nice guy mode here is a bit to give you some search terms to work with.
===
CB1
Main article: Cannabinoid receptor type 1
Cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1) receptors are thought to be the most widely expressed G-protein coupled receptors in the brain. This is due to endocannabinoid-mediated depolarization-induced suppression of inhibition, a very common form of short-term plasticity in which the depolarization of a single neuron induces a reduction in GABA-mediated neurotransmission. Endocannabinoids released from the depolarized neuron bind to CB1 receptors in the pre-synaptic neuron and cause a reduction in GABA release.
They are also found in other parts of the body. For instance, in the liver, activation of the CB1 receptor is known to increase de novo lipogenesis,[6] Activation of presynaptic CB1 receptors is also known to inhibit sympathetic innervation of blood vessels and contributes to the suppression of the neurogenic vasopressor response in septic shock.[7]
CB2
Main article: CB2 receptor
CB2 receptors are mainly expressed on T cells of the immune system, on macrophages and B cells, and in hematopoietic cells. They also have a function in keratinocytes, and are expressed on mouse pre-implantation embryos. It is also expressed on peripheral nerve terminals.In the brain, they are mainly expressed by microglial cells, where their role remains unclear.
Other cannabinoid receptors
The existance of additional cannabinoid receptors has long been suspected, due to the actions of compounds such as abnormal cannabidiol which produce cannabinoid-like effects on blood pressure and inflammation, yet do not activate either CB1 or CB2.[8][9][10] Recent molecular biology research suggested that the orphan receptor GPR55 should in fact be characterised as a cannabinoid receptor, on the basis of sequence homology at the binding site. Subsequent studies showed that GPR55 does indeed respond to cannabinoid ligands.[11][12] This profile as a distinct non-CB1/CB2 receptor which responds to a variety of both endogenous and exogenous cannabinoid ligands, has led some groups to suggest GPR55 should be categorised as the CB3 receptor, and this re-classification may follow in time.[13] However this is complicated by the fact that another possible cannabinoid receptor has been discovered in the hippocampus, although its gene has not yet been cloned,[14] suggesting that there may be at least two more cannabinoid receptors to be discovered, in addition to the two that are already known.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor
Since I'm still in my nice guy mode here is a bit to give you some search terms to work with.
===
CB1
Main article: Cannabinoid receptor type 1
Cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1) receptors are thought to be the most widely expressed G-protein coupled receptors in the brain. This is due to endocannabinoid-mediated depolarization-induced suppression of inhibition, a very common form of short-term plasticity in which the depolarization of a single neuron induces a reduction in GABA-mediated neurotransmission. Endocannabinoids released from the depolarized neuron bind to CB1 receptors in the pre-synaptic neuron and cause a reduction in GABA release.
They are also found in other parts of the body. For instance, in the liver, activation of the CB1 receptor is known to increase de novo lipogenesis,[6] Activation of presynaptic CB1 receptors is also known to inhibit sympathetic innervation of blood vessels and contributes to the suppression of the neurogenic vasopressor response in septic shock.[7]
CB2
Main article: CB2 receptor
CB2 receptors are mainly expressed on T cells of the immune system, on macrophages and B cells, and in hematopoietic cells. They also have a function in keratinocytes, and are expressed on mouse pre-implantation embryos. It is also expressed on peripheral nerve terminals.In the brain, they are mainly expressed by microglial cells, where their role remains unclear.
Other cannabinoid receptors
The existance of additional cannabinoid receptors has long been suspected, due to the actions of compounds such as abnormal cannabidiol which produce cannabinoid-like effects on blood pressure and inflammation, yet do not activate either CB1 or CB2.[8][9][10] Recent molecular biology research suggested that the orphan receptor GPR55 should in fact be characterised as a cannabinoid receptor, on the basis of sequence homology at the binding site. Subsequent studies showed that GPR55 does indeed respond to cannabinoid ligands.[11][12] This profile as a distinct non-CB1/CB2 receptor which responds to a variety of both endogenous and exogenous cannabinoid ligands, has led some groups to suggest GPR55 should be categorised as the CB3 receptor, and this re-classification may follow in time.[13] However this is complicated by the fact that another possible cannabinoid receptor has been discovered in the hippocampus, although its gene has not yet been cloned,[14] suggesting that there may be at least two more cannabinoid receptors to be discovered, in addition to the two that are already known.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
It was an analogy. Nature doesn't have any political leaning.Skipjack wrote:please dont even get me started on the intelligent design bullshit, which has nothing to do with my opinion anyway. My opinion is based on the need for survival of our western society. Drugabuse is one of the many things that can contribute to its downfall.
Other societies seem to be having less of a problem with it. So maybe our society and system is not fit for existance? Maybe we are volontarily accepting our demise because we are to eager to excuse everything and find a politically correct way to deal with it.
Anyway, once we are gone, others will take over and it is the others that I am worried about because their values are usually not what I have in mind for the future of my offspring (e.g. fundamentalists religions, or dictatorships).
Let me add that from the beginning of America until 1914 opiates were legal in America. Did it cause our downfall?Betruger wrote:It was an analogy. Nature doesn't have any political leaning.Skipjack wrote:please dont even get me started on the intelligent design bullshit, which has nothing to do with my opinion anyway. My opinion is based on the need for survival of our western society. Drugabuse is one of the many things that can contribute to its downfall.
Other societies seem to be having less of a problem with it. So maybe our society and system is not fit for existance? Maybe we are volontarily accepting our demise because we are to eager to excuse everything and find a politically correct way to deal with it.
Anyway, once we are gone, others will take over and it is the others that I am worried about because their values are usually not what I have in mind for the future of my offspring (e.g. fundamentalists religions, or dictatorships).
What will cause our downfall is financing American criminals and Muslim terrorists. But, I don't know. Maybe you think they deserve the money. I'm OK with that if you are. Maybe you think that without prohibition there would be a crime or terrorism shortage. I'm down with that.
The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/frie ... ialist.htm
You aren't one of them fookin socialist are you Skippy? It would really disappoint me if you were. However, it would explain your support for Drug Prohibition - price supports for criminals and terrorists - if you were. It would explain your position and I could forgive you for your attitude on the drug war putting it down as a general misguidedness.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I happen to be reading a book which might prove helpful to both parties. I suggest that they read, if they haven't already, "The Art of Controversy" by Schopenhauer. For those who might be afraid of German philosophers, I guarantee it is short, easy to read, inexpensive and useful in many circumstances. A free bilingual edition is available on the web.
