The Latest Study in the 'Anti-Cannabis Campaign'

hyphyjoose

hyphyjoose

Well-Known Member
Singlemalt said:
Because she quoted you, get it you. You mentioned Jacobs, no one else did. Gads
Click to expand...
Nice try at smoke and mirrors. She/you/whoever originally posted about FUNDING institutions, implying confounding by funders. She mentions Jacobs Foundation by emboldening my quote when I mention their name (because of the discourse regarding supporters from the few previous posts before that). I admit I fallaciously make an EMOTIONAL APPEAL (not an AUTHORITATIVE APPEAL), but you guys continued to make "appeals to bullshit" about the study even after the Jacobs bit (plus the part about funding Confounders and the implication that it was fallacious because of this was made before i mentioned Jacobs Foundation)
 
Singlemalt

Singlemalt

Well-Known Member
The study is flawed due to conclusions drawn. It was obvious if one has ever done rigorous scientific research. I wish to know why you have made this personal; you weren't attacked until you began attacking. Unless you have a vested interest/relationship with said study, your behavior is off.
 
hyphyjoose

hyphyjoose

Well-Known Member
Singlemalt said:
The study is flawed due to conclusions drawn. It was obvious if one has ever done rigorous scientific research.
Click to expand...
Okay, which conclusions are flawed, and what method of your expertise in rigorous scientific research proves it?

I wish to know why you have made this personal; you weren't attacked until you began attacking. Unless you have a vested interest/relationship with said study, your behavior is off.
Click to expand...
"attacked" and "attacking" are such strong words. I merely responded to some asinine claim that I was making appeals to authority when I wasn't, and that the study was making appeals to popular consensus, fear, and authority thru funding corruption.

PS>
It was obvious if one has ever done rigorous scientific research.
Click to expand...
Can you make it obvious for me then and just put the thread to rest? In your next post, dismantle the article's conclusion using your methodology and evidence.
 
curious2garden

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
hyphyjoose said:
Nice try at smoke and mirrors. She/you/whoever originally posted about FUNDING institutions, implying confounding by funders. She mentions Jacobs Foundation by emboldening my quote when I mention their name (because of the discourse regarding supporters from the few previous posts before that). I admit I fallaciously make an EMOTIONAL APPEAL (not an AUTHORITATIVE APPEAL), but you guys continued to make "appeals to bullshit" about the study even after the Jacobs bit (plus the part about funding Confounders and the implication that it was fallacious because of this was made before i mentioned Jacobs Foundation)
Click to expand...
And that was when he abandoned the english language
 
qwizoking

qwizoking

Well-Known Member
Last edited:
qwizoking

qwizoking

Well-Known Member
↑
fine ill play along,
no current lifestyle issues related..
profit off of production, no monetary constraints there. have no current cannabis dependencies
who needs a cannabis dependency when you have a cocaine addiction ;)(nice avatar)

14 minutes agoReport
Like

but what does your comment have to do with anything?
whether i use cocaine or not... not related to the op
 
hyphyjoose

hyphyjoose

Well-Known Member
qwizoking said:
thats hash:dunce:


there were a series of pics, i was making some sort of point. i think about grain boundaries a couple years back and people seem to recognize that pic as me
Click to expand...
Dude that's crazy, that's really hash in the last pic? It looks like straight up meth. BTW I wasn't trying to insult you, Sorry, didn't mean for you to take it the wrong way-I was just trying to be funny

Singlemalt are you going to dismantle this study with your methodology dude? I'm really interested in your response
 
qwizoking

qwizoking

Well-Known Member
no lol, but i have heard that and many other substances..
ive seen purple, pink, orange hash. i just use my background when producing.
you can read "qwizos qwiso" if you like for a slightly more info
 
WeedFreak78

WeedFreak78

Well-Known Member
Could a big factor be that long term cannabis users have a harder time finding employment and passing random on the job drug tests? A joint could be a 30 day positive. A line of coke, 30 rack, some pills Friday night..your good Monday. Alcohol and most other drugs are easier to hide from testing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top