No More Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
yes hence the "(with no proof it does)" it needs more study

now how the fuck does that back up your "doesnt cause cancer" claim?
You're either trolling or you're the newest King Dum-Dum of the Politics section.

Cannabis DOES NOT cause cancer.

Your claim that it CAUSES cancer IS the CLAIM which YOU need to back up.

What you're saying is that you expect the atheist to disprove the existence of God, yet you can't prove he's real in the first place.

So any actual conclusive evidence it causes cancer? The study you quoted for testicular cancer is invalid, it doesn't follow the scientific method properly, theres no actual raw data collected, did you check ALL the studies they referenced for flaws too? It's a pseudo-experiment, in other words it can come up with a hypothesis which can be tested by the collection of quantative or qualatitive data (i.e. in a "real" experiment) but can never conclusively prove anything.

Are you keeping up or are the windows too tasty?
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
You're either trolling or you're the newest King Dum-Dum of the Politics section.

Cannabis DOES NOT cause cancer.

Your claim that it CAUSES cancer IS the CLAIM which YOU need to back up.

What you're saying is that you expect the atheist to disprove the existence of God, yet you can't prove he's real in the first place.

So any actual conclusive evidence it causes cancer? The study you quoted for testicular cancer is invalid, it doesn't follow the scientific method properly, theres no actual raw data collected, did you check ALL the studies they referenced for flaws too? It's a pseudo-experiment, in other words it can come up with a hypothesis which can be tested by the collection of quantative or qualatitive data (i.e. in a "real" experiment) but can never conclusively prove anything.

Are you keeping up or are the windows too tasty?
Originally Posted by Harrekin
It causing cancer is the claim, not that it doesn't, hence why the studies are to discover if it causes cancer.

Had noone studied any of the sciences? Scientific method.



i beg to differ NO ONE in this thread has said cannabis causes cancer

however it definatly has been said that IT doesnt

Originally Posted by abandonconflict
Cannabis has been conclusively proven not to cause, agitate, catalyze, potentiate, complicate or even to have a synergistic negativity with cancer, but in every case, there is some indication of treatment. I have seen all the studies. I'm also going to be an oncologist when I grow up.








the only correct thing an athiest can say is that they "dont beleive in god"

once you say "there is no god" then that becomes a positive claim and then falls under burden of proof (whether or not the statement is provable)

looks like you too need an education on this
[youtube]KayBys8gaJY[/youtube]

right you watched it yet? are you getting your head around the concept yet?
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member










the only correct thing an athiest can say is that they "dont beleive in god"

once you say "there is no god" then that becomes a positive claim and then falls under burden of proof (whether or not the statement is provable)

looks like you too need an education on this
[youtube]KayBys8gaJY[/youtube]

right you watched it yet? are you getting your head around the concept yet?
Your arrogant belies your idiocy, the claim that there IS God is a positive claim, saying God does not exist is NOT a positive claim.

Either way you're full of shite, prove cannabis causes cancer or GTFO.

I can give you 5 studies commissioned to prove cannabis CAUSES cancer but that actually proved the opposite.

You're a total oinker btw, it's obvious now, go troll somewhere else piggy.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Your arrogant belies your idiocy, the claim that there IS God is a positive claim, saying God does not exist is NOT a positive claim.

Either way you're full of shite, prove cannabis causes cancer or GTFO.

I can give you 5 studies commissioned to prove cannabis CAUSES cancer but that actually proved the opposite.

You're a total oinker btw, it's obvious now, go troll somewhere else piggy.
i'll spell this out nice and simple for you

my position in this has never been that cannabis causes cancer

i have denied that it has been "convulsively proven" to not cause cancer
Originally Posted by abandonconflict
Cannabis has been conclusively proven not to cause, agitate, catalyze, potentiate, complicate or even to have a synergistic negativity with cancer, but in every case, there is some indication of treatment. I have seen all the studies. I'm also going to be an oncologist when I grow up.
heres a hint for you science and medicine never works in absolutes like that

so to repeat

denying this statement "Cannabis has been conclusively proven not to cause, agitate, catalyze, potentiate, complicate or even to have a synergistic negativity with cancer"

=/= me stating that cannabis causes cancer...


god does exist
god does not exist
^^both are statements that require proof

i believe that god exists
i do not beleive god exists
are statements of belief that do not require proof

now why dont you go back thru this thread and found the times where i have said cannabis causes cancer instead of asking abandon for proof of his claim

just because your finding a concept hard to get thru you skull doesnt mean you should call someone a pig you cunt
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
i'll spell this out nice and simple for you

my position in this has never been that cannabis causes cancer

i have denied that it has been "convulsively proven" to not cause cancer


heres a hint for you science and medicine never works in absolutes like that

so to repeat

denying this statement "Cannabis has been conclusively proven not to cause, agitate, catalyze, potentiate, complicate or even to have a synergistic negativity with cancer"

=/= me stating that cannabis causes cancer...


god does exist
god does not exist
^^both are statements that require proof

i believe that god exists
i do not beleive god exists
are statements of belief that do not require proof

now why dont you go back thru this thread and found the times where i have said cannabis causes cancer instead of asking abandon for proof of his claim

just because your finding a concept hard to get thru you skull doesnt mean you should call someone a pig you cunt
You can't disprove the existence of God without someone first claiming there was a God.

Do you wear a helmet in the bath?
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
You can't disprove the existence of God without someone first claiming there was a God.

Do you wear a helmet in the bath?

and here to the claim

"Cannabis has been conclusively proven not to cause, agitate, catalyze, potentiate, complicate or even to have a synergistic negativity with cancer"

now theres over 200 different types of cancer you would have to have had exhaustive studies on all before you could even come close to making the above statement
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
On all studies to date thus far (including ones done to try prove it causes cancer) THC has caused programmed cell death to occur on cancerous or precancerous cells.

This supports the assertion above. The onus of proof is on you to disprove the above claim, with conclusive evidence that cannabis causes cancer IN THE FIRST PLACE. This is the claim that needs to be proven, just as there has to be proof of God before you can be asked to disprove his existence. Can you not see you're using the logical argument ass-backwards?
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
On all studies to date thus far (including ones done to try prove it causes cancer) THC has caused programmed cell death to occur on cancerous or precancerous cells.

This supports the assertion above. The onus of proof is on you to disprove the above claim, with conclusive evidence that cannabis causes cancer IN THE FIRST PLACE. This is the claim that needs to be proven, just as there has to be proof of God before you can be asked to disprove his existence. Can you not see you're using the logical argument ass-backwards?
got proof for that statement?

now asking for proof of it am i saying it doesnt happen? if you fail to show me proof am i saying its false if i say its not proven

im sorry but it is you that has got this one backwards
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
got proof for that statement?

now asking for proof of it am i saying it doesnt happen? if you fail to show me proof am i saying its false if i say its not proven

im sorry but it is you that has got this one backwards
Can you not go to Google and type in "THC Apoptosis" and push the enter key no?

Spock would be unimpressed, your logic is not sound.

EDIT: Apple, sort out your auto spell correct, ffs.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Fine whatever, keep believing what you want, I'm bored.

It is commonly known THC causes apoptosis tho, if you're too ignorant to either understand what that means or to look it up on Google then you're not worth convincing.

Keep looking like a windows licker tho ;)
yeah lol you fucking gobshite :P

[h=2]Holder of the burden[/h] When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[SUP][1][/SUP] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Funny we have to resort to liberal tactics, bullshit, to get what's our fucking business? I eat magical vegan cookies to help my bipolar. Would it be cool if I banned your slaughtering cows,which is the only way you guys can get nutrition, considering meat eaters plant phobia?
I never use a liberal tactic. i always have and always will acquire the things i need through hard work dedication, cunning and guile. I am angry beyond words that cannabis is a whipping boy for every social ill from both sides of the political spectrum, and the assholes who fall more generally on my side are the ones who have the most vehement desire to obliterate the sweet leaf. If cannabis were the only issue in my life i would only vote libertarian, green or tommy chong. unfortunately theres other shit to worry about besides dope, and the guys on Obama's side have proven themselves incompetent on everything but busting law abiding cannabis dispensaries, and smuggling guns into mexico. At these activities they truely excel.

blaming the republicans for the drug war is specious, cannabis prohibition started under woodrow wilson, jimmy carter authorized the spraying of paraquat over mexico, and big bubba clinton signed off on Operation Green Merchant and no-knock warrants in the middle of the night. republicans might be assholes, but the democrats are just as bad.

playing the left/right blame game gets us nowhere, and only makes the shackles chafe.
 

MellowFarmer

Well-Known Member
i'll spell this out nice and simple for you

my position in this has never been that cannabis causes cancer

i have denied that it has been "convulsively proven" to not cause cancer


heres a hint for you science and medicine never works in absolutes like that

so to repeat

denying this statement "Cannabis has been conclusively proven not to cause, agitate, catalyze, potentiate, complicate or even to have a synergistic negativity with cancer"

=/= me stating that cannabis causes cancer...


god does exist
god does not exist
^^both are statements that require proof

i believe that god exists
i do not beleive god exists
are statements of belief that do not require proof

now why dont you go back thru this thread and found the times where i have said cannabis causes cancer instead of asking abandon for proof of his claim

just because your finding a concept hard to get thru you skull doesnt mean you should call someone a pig you cunt
While pondering upon my original Theory of the RIU Troll it struck me as being quite obvious really and I feel quite silly having overlooked this! Follow the money. ginja works for Big Pharma. I still consider Big Pharma Fascist Pigs however I thought pertinent to this discussion that she is likely from the Big Pharma faction of the Fascist Pigs
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
While pondering upon my original Theory of the RIU Troll it struck me as being quite obvious really and I feel quite silly having overlooked this! Follow the money. ginja works for Big Pharma. I still consider Big Pharma Fascist Pigs however I thought pertinent to this discussion that she is likely from the Big Pharma faction of the Fascist Pigs
well you always were a fucking idiot now weren't you?

your detecting hasn't even got my gender right let alone career

im actually a NWO disinformation agent tasked to keep the secret of cannabis IMMORTALITY giving properties away from the unwashed masses like yourself. if undesirables found out this secret then they would be immune to every known disease illness and old age (which would put a serious hamper on our depopulation plan)

as a sideline i supply all the chemicals that go into commercial flight across the usa. its a particularly delightful mix of heavy chemicals and mind control agents are rendered in effective just by being in the same room as a spliff. so in light of that i decided to create morgellions a clever little bacteria that as it replicates become indistinguishable from the fibres tat you were wearing that day.

but thats all to tide me over before the big push so to speak. im actually due to be the commandant of the largest death (i mean fema) camp in the usa. i've got my uniform all picked out already ( a lovely leather black number with skulls and shit) my office is supplied with its own trapdoor and pit with spikes

once we start rounding you sheep up you will be kept in the camp for exactly 77 and 3/4 hours during which time you will be forced to work producing barbie dolls to indoctinate the rest of the world. after the 77 and 3/4hours you will be lead to a mincing machine where your flesh and bones will be ground down into pink slime ready for making into macdonalds

im know im not supposed to be starting any lists till at least christamss but i figure what the hell yours is at the very top of the list of people getting "special treatment" if you'd been a fit honey that would have been 77 and 3/4 hours of "reduced duties" in my office but i've seen your file and your a dribbling munter so your "special treatment" will be served else where

until the day of the "push" keep up the good work being retarded only reason im telling you all this now is because with your iq levels nobody could take anything you say seriously if you even appeared to get a bit smarter people might start believing your rantings ad EVERYTHING would collapse down round our head and the world would be left free to live for ever and to gain superpowers from smoking spliffs

commandant ginja

ps i also put fluoride into water
pps and msg into organic vegetables at farmers markets
pps dolphins i herd them into fishing nets and so discredit tuna fishers
ppps and those plastic wrappings that are impossible to get into is me
pppps all those alien abductions were me too
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
im not the one making the statement it is not up to me to prove it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

see how this works?
I offered proof of my claim, many pages ago.

Your own study that you linked, is my proof.

Did you read the review of the studies on that website you linked? Did you research further to find out about each of the studies listed on the site? Did you then investigate those studies?

I offer the entire body of evidence that you can possibly find in such an investigation as proof of my claim that cannabis does not cause cancer, even when you burn it.
 
Top