No More Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest

[Harrekin]

Iv been smoking joints for like 13 years, shouldn't I be like super dead or something?

 

[ginjawarrior]

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.

as i said befor your paranoid delusions about big pharma are blinding you to your own bia's no reasonable person would take that link as "Cannabis has been conclusively proven not to cause, agitate, catalyze, potentiate, complicate or even to have a synergistic negativity with cancer,"

what that link says about the studies
"So at the moment we don't have clear evidence either way. We do know that smoking is unhealthy. And that, like tobacco, cannabis contains cancer causing substances. Therefore it would seem likely to increase cancer risk. But we need more research to know this for sure."

you screaming pseudoscience while claim its been proven show you dont have a clue what science is

 

[abandonconflict]

as i said befor your paranoid delusions about big pharma are blinding you to your own bia's no reasonable person would take that link as "Cannabis has been conclusively proven not to cause, agitate, catalyze, potentiate, complicate or even to have a synergistic negativity with cancer,"

what that link says about the studies
"So at the moment we don't have clear evidence either way. We do know that smoking is unhealthy. And that, like tobacco, cannabis contains cancer causing substances. Therefore it would seem likely to increase cancer risk. But we need more research to know this for sure."

you screaming pseudoscience while claim its been proven show you dont have a clue what science is

I'm done with you, you have an IQ lower than your fucking shoe size.

 

[abandonconflict]

This statement "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." does not contradict this, "Do you not see that I am calling the integrity of all these studies into question? I'm not using them to back my claim." because the aim of those studies was to prove a causal link between cannabis and cancer.

You have not shown this argument to be invalid.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I'm done with you, you have an IQ lower than your fucking shoe size.

what leaving so soon but we were having so much fun...

You have not shown this argument to be invalid.

ahh good your back.

on what basis are you saying they are flawed? in each case they presented the data fairly and drew no conclusions apart from "needs further study".

you've made a broad sweeping statement that only needs a link from 1 of the 200+ cancers to be shown false (a possibility too once future studies come back)

if that link is ever found then you will be shown to be just as guilty and dishonest as the prohibitionist's that used faulty data to back up their own biases

in case your still thinking the site i linked to is "big pharma" pulling the wool over our eyes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Research_UK
"Cancer Research UK's work is almost entirely funded by the public. It raises money through donations, legacies, community fundraising, events, retail and corporate partnerships. Over 40,000 people are regular volunteers.[SUP][1][/SUP]"

[h=2]"The charity works in partnership with other organisations. These include the UK Department of Health, the Wellcome Trust, the National Health Service, NICE, and the National Cancer Intelligence Network. It is one of the partners in the National Cancer Research Institute which also includes the Medical Research Council (UK) and Leukaemia & Lymphoma Research.[20] It is also a partner in the planned Francis Crick Institute.[21]"
[/h]and then there your claims of proof which in itself is pseudo science

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5559
One cannot know anything inductively with absolute certainty. The inductive method gives us knowledge that is only probably true. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty.

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5725
In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.

http://physics.about.com/b/2011/03/26/scienceproof.htm
One consequence of Popper's work with falsifiability is the understanding that you never really prove a theory. What scientists do is instead come up with implications of the theory, make hypotheses based on those implications, and then try to prove that specific hypothesis true or false through either experiment or careful observation. If the experiment or observation matches the prediction of the hypothesis, the scientist has gained support for the hypothesis (and therefore the underlying theory), but has not proven it. It's always possible that there's another explanation for the result.

However, if the prediction is proven false, then the theory might have serious flaws. Not necessarily, of course, because there are three potential stages that could contain the flaw:

• the experimental set-up
• the reasoning that led to the hypothesis
• the underlying theory itself

Evidence which contradicts the prediction may just be a result of an error in running the experiment, or it could mean that the theory is sound, but the way the scientist (or even scientists in general) interpreted it has some flaws. And, of course, it's possible that the underlying theory is just flat out wrong.

 

[abandonconflict]

what leaving so soon but we were having so much fun...


ahh good your back.

on what basis are you saying they are flawed? in each case they presented the data fairly and drew no conclusions apart from "needs further study".

you've made a broad sweeping statement that only needs a link from 1 of the 200+ cancers to be shown false (a possibility too once future studies come back)

if that link is ever found then you will be shown to be just as guilty and dishonest as the prohibitionist's that used faulty data to back up their own biases

in case your still thinking the site i linked to is "big pharma" pulling the wool over our eyes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Research_UK
"Cancer Research UK's work is almost entirely funded by the public. It raises money through donations, legacies, community fundraising, events, retail and corporate partnerships. Over 40,000 people are regular volunteers.[SUP][1][/SUP]"

"The charity works in partnership with other organisations. These include the UK Department of Health, the Wellcome Trust, the National Health Service, NICE, and the National Cancer Intelligence Network. It is one of the partners in the National Cancer Research Institute which also includes the Medical Research Council (UK) and Leukaemia & Lymphoma Research.[20] It is also a partner in the planned Francis Crick Institute.[21]"


and then there your claims of proof which in itself is pseudo science

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5559
One cannot know anything inductively with absolute certainty. The inductive method gives us knowledge that is only probably true. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty.

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5725
In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.

http://physics.about.com/b/2011/03/26/scienceproof.htm
One consequence of Popper's work with falsifiability is the understanding that you never really prove a theory. What scientists do is instead come up with implications of the theory, make hypotheses based on those implications, and then try to prove that specific hypothesis true or false through either experiment or careful observation. If the experiment or observation matches the prediction of the hypothesis, the scientist has gained support for the hypothesis (and therefore the underlying theory), but has not proven it. It's always possible that there's another explanation for the result.

However, if the prediction is proven false, then the theory might have serious flaws. Not necessarily, of course, because there are three potential stages that could contain the flaw:

• the experimental set-up
• the reasoning that led to the hypothesis
• the underlying theory itself

Evidence which contradicts the prediction may just be a result of an error in running the experiment, or it could mean that the theory is sound, but the way the scientist (or even scientists in general) interpreted it has some flaws. And, of course, it's possible that the underlying theory is just flat out wrong.

So you can explain methodological naturalism, but you can't adhere to it?

READ THE FUCKING STUDIES YOU LINKED!

 

[abandonconflict]

This statement "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." does not contradict this, "Do you not see that I am calling the integrity of all these studies into question? I'm not using them to back my claim." because the aim of those studies was to prove a causal link between cannabis and cancer.

 

[ginjawarrior]

This statement "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." does not contradict this, "Do you not see that I am calling the integrity of all these studies into question? I'm not using them to back my claim." because the aim of those studies was to prove a causal link between cannabis and cancer.

that would be called the "hypothesis"

again the data was shown fairly and the conclusion was "needed more study" ie experimenation isnt finished

 

[abandonconflict]

the data was shown fairly and the conclusion was "needed more study" ie experimenation isnt finished

The research was commissioned FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVING A CAUSAL LINK and it failed to do so. However it indicated the opposite.

 

[ginjawarrior]

The research was commissioned FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVING A CAUSAL LINK and it failed to do so. However it showed the opposite.

untill further research has been done then you can't draw any conclusion from it. not only that but there were mixed results from different studies

when further work has been done we'll have a better idea

 

[abandonconflict]

untill further research has been done then you can't draw any conclusion from it. not only that but there were mixed results from different studies

when further work has been done we'll have a better idea

So you are saying the research is useless?

 

[ginjawarrior]

So you are saying the research is useless?

no its not useless its thrown up some unexpected interesting results but untill they test again with either new methodolgoy or hypothesis then we can't conclude anything from them

 

[MellowFarmer]

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

Thank you for your candor.

This reminds me of A Few Good Men

I can handle the truth thank you kindly for sharing it.

 

[Ringsixty]

I agree ! No more tax cuts for the wealthy. (who do not get a tax return check)
I agree ! No more tax returns for the middle class. (Who gets some tax return check)
I agree ! No more tax breaks for the poor. (who gets a tax return check)

Fair is fair.

We need tax reform.

 

[MellowFarmer]

I agree ! No more tax cuts for the wealthy. (who do not get a tax return check)
I agree ! No more tax returns for the middle class. (Who gets some tax return check)
I agree ! No more tax breaks for the poor. (who gets a tax return check)

Fair is fair.

We need tax reform.

The rich get to hop through loopholes. The poor get refunds. The Middle Class gets Fucked.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Thank you for your candor.This reminds me of A Few Good Men I can handle the truth thank you kindly for sharing it.

im sorry but i read your file and the facts disagree with your last statement and i quote"mellowfarmer cannot handle buttering his own toast, and would not beable to recognise the "truth" if it did a sartorical dance infront of him before running up to bitchslap him as a well deserved encore"commandant Ginjafixing a deficiant education system 1 deathcamp at a time

 

[MellowFarmer]

im sorry but i read your file and the facts disagree with your last statement and i quote"mellowfarmer cannot handle buttering his own toast, and would not beable to recognise the "truth" if it did a sartorical dance infront of him before running up to bitchslap him as a well deserved encore"commandant Ginjafixing a deficiant education system 1 deathcamp at a time

twatwaffle says wut?

 

[MellowFarmer]

ginga you says you be a Parent, well as someone who just brought another innocent soul into her Home and is now underway of that winless battle to keep its innocence... I sigh no I cry no I fucking bawl that you are out there fucking with innocent souls feeding misinformation as truth for the glory of the GreedHead.

 

[ginjawarrior]

ginga you says you be a Parent, well as someone who just brought another innocent soul into her Home and is now underway of that winless battle to keep its innocence... I sigh no I cry no I fucking bawl that you are out there fucking with innocent souls feeding misinformation as truth for the glory of the GreedHead.

as an athiest i feel compelled to inform you that the only "soles" that you need worry about involve the bottom of jackboots crunching up to your door when they come to remove children from scumbags like yourself who choose to get their kids stoned im ginja and i approve this msg

 

[MellowFarmer]

as an athiest i feel compelled to inform you that the only "soles" that you need worry about involve the bottom of jackboots crunching up to your door when they come to remove children from scumbags like yourself who choose to get their kids stoned im ginja and i approve this msg

As a recovering catholic I understand one's deflection of a simple word filled with many meanings.