The Latest Study in the 'Anti-Cannabis Campaign'

[hyphyjoose]

I think the science presented is actually pretty good. I just dislike how it's being misrepresented--the article headlines with marijuana being worse than alcohol, even though that alleged fact only pertains to nearly 1 out of 6 users. It's not a fair representation of cannabis dependent users.

Also, some of the foundations (like Jacobs Foundation) do really good work for people around the world. No reason to discredit them. I'd be more interested in knowing what kind of socioeconomic environment the participants were selected from (were a majority already indigent to some degree?)--once we can see THAT data, I feel we can make a better interpretation of the end product

 

[cannabineer]

Bottom line, "Clinical Psychology" is not real science

It is science in yoga pants.

 

[curious2garden]

I think the science presented is actually pretty good. I just dislike how it's being misrepresented--the article headlines with marijuana being worse than alcohol, even though that alleged fact only pertains to nearly 1 out of 6 users. It's not a fair representation of cannabis dependent users.

Also, some of the foundations (like Jacobs Foundation) do really good work for people around the world. No reason to discredit them. I'd be more interested in knowing what kind of socioeconomic environment the participants were selected from (were a majority already indigent to some degree?)--once we can see THAT data, I feel we can make a better interpretation of the end product

Argumentum ad verecundiam

 

[hyphyjoose]

Argumentum ad verecundiam

That doesn't apply to this article. The Jacobs Foundation didn't release the data nor did they investigate the reported government data(criminal charges, dmv records, things like that). Jacobs Foundation merely gave a grant for the research.

Edit: I also wanted to say that ad verecundiam applies to things like "Do this because we're the police and the police say it is correct, so it must be correct"

 

[srh88]

It is science in yoga pants.

i would like to find the person that invented yoga pants just so i can shake their hand

 

[cannabineer]

Also, some of the foundations (like Jacobs Foundation) do really good work for people around the world. No reason to discredit them.

There is the argumentum right there. "They're cool ... so their data is all cool too." She nailed you legit.

 

[Rrog]

ad populum

 

[hyphyjoose]

There is the argumentum right there. "They're cool ... so their data is all cool too." She nailed you legit.

She didn't nail anything. Like I said, the data doesn't come from the Jacobs Foundation.

The same argument could be made against you guys right now-- "We smoke pot everyday, so we know that it has no affect on us negatively. Even though I'm not a doctor, nor an agency that has access to certain records", etc. I'm not trying to start a flame war or fight, I'd rather keep it on topic.I just want to show why it doesn't apply, and that if anything you guys are using an emotional appeal fallacy

 

[curious2garden]

ad populum

I'd agree; DSM ref and let's add:
Argumentum ad metum

 

[hyphyjoose]

I'd agree; DSM ref and let's add:
Argumentum ad metum

This one, I'll agree with. but ad populum, ad verecundiam? seriously lol, we can stop throwing latin around now.

 

[curious2garden]

She didn't nail anything. Like I said, the data doesn't come from the Jacobs Foundation.

The same argument could be made against you guys right now-- "We smoke pot everyday, so we know that it has no affect on us negatively. Even though I'm not a doctor, nor an agency that has access to certain records", etc. I'm not trying to start a flame war or fight, I'd rather keep it on topic.I just want to show why it doesn't apply, and that if anything you guys are using an emotional appeal fallacy

LOL not a doctor...... that's ok we only play Ph.D./M.D. on the internet LOL

 

[curious2garden]

This one, I'll agree with. but ad populum, ad verecundiam? seriously lol, we can stop throwing latin around now.

Sorry it is the language of my people, I can not help myself.

 

[cannabineer]

She didn't nail anything. Like I said, the data doesn't come from the Jacobs Foundation.

Not relevant to what we're saying. You made a fallacious argument on the strength of their "rep". That is pure argumentum ad verecundiam - argument to authority.

The same argument could be made against you guys right now-- "We smoke pot everyday, so we know that it has no affect on us negatively. Even though I'm not a doctor, nor an agency that has access to certain records", etc.

We aren't making that argument. I detect a straw man.

I'm not trying to start a flame war or fight, I'd rather keep it on topic.I just want to show why it doesn't apply, and that if anything you guys are using an emotional appeal fallacy

Please do show why it doesn't apply. Please use simple derivable logic; have pity on us non-doctor sorts.

 

[cannabineer]

LOL not a doctor...... that's ok we only play Ph.D./M.D. on the internet LOL

And we got a great night of sleep.

 

[Singlemalt]

Not relevant to what we're saying. You made a fallacious argument on the strength of their "rep". That is pure argumentum ad verecundiam - argument to authority. We aren't making that argument. I detect a straw man.

Please do show why it doesn't apply. Please use simple derivable logic; have pity on us non-doctor sorts.

It depends on what kind of non-doctor sorts we are

 

[tangerinegreen555]

now pinch hitting for Unclebaldrick...#555...tangerine green...

what's this thread about?

 

[hyphyjoose]

Not relevant to what we're saying. You made a fallacious argument on the strength of their "rep". That is pure argumentum ad verecundiam - argument to authority. We aren't making that argument. I detect a straw man.

Please do show why it doesn't apply. Please use simple derivable logic; have pity on us non-doctor sorts.

Are you really trying to get into some stupid academic dick measuring contest? Did you just finish your philosophy general ed classes and are rearing for a good debate?

The Jacobs Foundation helped FUND the research. They were not the SCIENTISTS who did the research. You try to discredit them by saying ad veracandium to an emboldened part of my quote and act like they should be discredited based on an appeal to authority. That was really one of the dumbest things I've read in this thread because it made no sense.

If you can't make a response to the data presented in the study with some anecdotal evidence of your own than I don't know why you continue to troll this thread or bother responding

 

[curious2garden]

It depends on what kind of non-doctor sorts we are

They you go with your taxonomy again!

 

[hyphyjoose]

now pinch hitting for Unclebaldrick...#555...tangerine green...

what's this thread about?

The entire point of the thread was to get a feel on what the day-to-day stoners @ RIU lives are like, in contrast to the article (are you guys poor and socially immobile? stressed? mid life problems as described in the study?). It got overshadowed by egotistical people throwing latin around and turning it into some stupid point of contention

 

[Singlemalt]

Are you really trying to get into some stupid academic dick measuring contest? Did you just finish your philosophy general ed classes and are rearing for a good debate?

The Jacobs Foundation helped FUND the research. They were not the SCIENTISTS who did the research. You try to discredit them by saying ad veracandium to an eboldened part of my quote and act like they should be discredited based on an appeal to authority. That was really one of the dumbest things I've read in this thread because it made no sense.

If you can't make a response to the data presented in the study with some anecdotal evidence of your own than I don't know why you continue to troll this thread or bother responding

Troll???! You posted and asked for a discussion; you are getting a discussion. However, since it appears to not be how you envisioned you declare troll.