The Latest Study in the 'Anti-Cannabis Campaign'

[curious2garden]

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

Argument ad hominem

To whom?

Anecdotal evidence does not scientific research make.

 

[cannabineer]

Are you really trying to get into some stupid academic dick measuring contest?

Argumentum ad phallum ... you just failed hard.

Did you just finish your philosophy general ed classes and are rearing for a good debate?

No I'm telling you true ... I HAVE stopped beating my wife. Kind of you to ask.

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

Omg!!!11!11 You're Fin's sister!! (You're hawt.)

P.s. You spelled scandium wrong.

 

[curious2garden]

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.

^^^^^^ that's it. Saddest part is he doesn't seem to get you two just tore that study to shreds based on methodology but instead he demands Anecdotes?

I must walk my dog now, or my yoga pants will stop fitting.

 

[hyphyjoose]

Argument ad hominem

I was merely asking you a question, notice the question marks? Notice there was no presupposition or statement made, only inquired about. No argument here.

To whom?

To most people who know what an argumentum ad verecundiam is--and to those who know the difference between funders and research.

Anecdotal evidence does not scientific research make.

Even Wikipedia disagrees with you. It may not be STRONG evidence and is easily subject to fallacy, but it's considered evidence none the less.

"
Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a generalized claim; it is, however, within the scope of scientific method for claims regarding particular instances, for example the use of case studies in medicine.

The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts.[citation needed] Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; in fact, human cognitive biases such as confirmation bias mean that exceptional or confirmatory anecdotes are much more likely to be remembered. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is "typical" requiresstatistical evidence.[3][4]
"

I'm done abiding your trolling--not going to bother responding to this nonsensical garbage anymore ^^

 

[cannabineer]

^^^^^^ that's it. Saddest part is he doesn't seem to get you two just tore that study to shreds based on methodology but instead he demands Anecdotes?

I must walk my dog now, or my yoga pants will stop fitting.

He's poisoned. Apply the anecdote STAT!

 

[Singlemalt]

I get it, you are data collecting. You wish to assign certain anecdotes to certain members cuz we're stoners.
Edit: A term paper for your psychology class?

 

[cannabineer]

I was merely asking you a question, notice the question marks? Notice there was no presupposition or statement made, only inquired about. No argument here.



To most people who know what an argumentum ad verecundiam is--and to those who know the difference between funders and research.



Even Wikipedia disagrees with you. It may not be STRONG evidence and is easily subject to fallacy, but it's considered evidence none the less.

"
Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a generalized claim; it is, however, within the scope of scientific method for claims regarding particular instances, for example the use of case studies in medicine.

The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts.[citation needed] Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; in fact, human cognitive biases such as confirmation bias mean that exceptional or confirmatory anecdotes are much more likely to be remembered. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is "typical" requiresstatistical evidence.[3][4]
"

I'm done abiding your trolling--not going to bother responding to this nonsensical garbage anymore ^^

We have already dispensed with your arguments directly and completely when we dismantled the study on methodology. Your other arguments lose traction at that point.

You happened into a nest of bored intelligent people with much hard-science experience under their belts ... and an inclination to scrap the way Ph.Ds do over intellectual turf. You are being given the dignity of full-spectrum abuse as an equal, and you're complaining about it. That suggests to me that you don't have much experience in academic circles. We are butthurt-seeking missiles and you shouted TARGET! If we hadn't risen in unison to the signal, you would be legitimately insulted.

 

[cannabineer]

I get it, you are data collecting. You wish to assign certain anecdotes to certain members cuz we're stoners.
Edit: A term paper for your psychology class?

 

[curious2garden]

We have already dispensed with your arguments directly and completely when we dismantled the study on methodology. Your other arguments lose traction at that point.

You happened into a nest of bored intelligent people with much hard-science experience under their belts ... and an inclination to scrap the way Ph.Ds do over intellectual turf. You are being given the dignity of full-spectrum abuse as an equal, and you're complaining about it. That suggests to me that you don't have much experience in academic circles. We are butthurt-seeking missiles and you shouted TARGET! If we hadn't risen in unison to the signal, you would be legitimately insulted.

Some pretty delicious bait too! I love snacking on soft science yum

 

[cannabineer]

Some pretty delicious bait too! I love snacking on soft science yum

Until it stops fighting ~bored~

 

[Singlemalt]

Note the point the discussion turned. The study was being dismantled and he took offence when the grant org was questioned, then it became personal to him.

 

[curious2garden]

Note the point the discussion turned. The study was being dismantled and he took offence when the grant org was questioned, then it became personal to him.

BINGO!! Good eye! I did not notice that. But my butthurt meter suddenly pegged.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

I'm done abiding your trolling--not going to bother responding to this nonsensical garbage anymore

 

[cannabineer]

Note the point the discussion turned. The study was being dismantled and he took offence when the grant org was questioned, then it became personal to him.

When we all ply our biases, it gets tiring.

 

[hyphyjoose]

Note the point the discussion turned. The study was being dismantled and he took offence when the grant org was questioned, then it became personal to him.

No one ever dismantled the study though! You can't just throw out your argumentum ad blahblah and then expect it to hold weight without showing EXACTLY how it applies, and to WHICH PARTS of the study it applies.

You guys've only been able to embolden Jacobs Foundation and then make your claims against them--the people who didn't even release the research information, lol.

I was actually looking forward to some responses in this thread that gave anecdotal evidence about current lifestyle issues in contrast with the report's findings. All I got instead was a bunch of pseudo-intellectual bullshit

 

[cannabineer]

No one ever dismantled the study though! You can't just throw out your argumentum ad blahblah and then expect it to hold weight without showing EXACTLY how it applies, and to WHICH PARTS of the study it applies.

You guys've only been able to embolden Jacobs Foundation and then make your claims against them--the people who didn't even release the research information, lol.

 

[hyphyjoose]

So you continually prove that you can't factually dismantle the study and you continue to meme it up instead. Carry on, friend

 

[Singlemalt]

No one ever dismantled the study though! You can't just throw out your argumentum ad blahblah and then expect it to hold weight without showing EXACTLY how it applies, and to WHICH PARTS of the study it applies.

You guys've only been able to embolden Jacobs Foundation and then make your claims against them--the people who didn't even release the research information, lol.

I was actually looking forward to some responses in this thread that gave anecdotal evidence about current lifestyle issues in contrast with the report's findings. All I got instead was a bunch of pseudo-intellectual bullshit

No one specifically mentioned Jacobs, you did. Note the other grantors. Now you interest me

 

[hyphyjoose]

No one specifically mentioned Jacobs, you did. Note the other grantors. Now you interest me

Notice post #23 where curious2garden makes his argumentum ad nonsense implication with an emboldened Jacobs Foundation in my quote.

Again, the Jacobs Foundation provide MONEY. My opinion on whether or not they're a good company does not apply to this study BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE PEOPLE PROVIDING EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND MAKING THE CLAIM.

Do you understand argumentum ad verecundiam a little better now?

 

[Singlemalt]

Because she quoted you, get it you. You mentioned Jacobs, no one else did. Gads