Skunk Like Marihuana Leads to Brain dead hippies! Says the yellow press.

pabloesqobar · Dec 1, 2015

see4 said:
Oh I know, but it's always fun to see people like @pabloesqobar try to defend bullshit. No matter how intelligently condescending he appears to be, it's still bullshit in the end.

I see you are confused about my position on the study. I'm not defending the study. I disagree with the study, and have pointed out repeatedly that it is "flawed' during this conversation. The merits of that study appears to be the only thing we agree on. Please re-read if you don't believe me. But that was never the issue. Nice try at misrepresenting my position, tho.

The issue is simple. You claim the Forbes article is trying to convince people of the findings of that flawed study, and claim they are therefore perpetuating right wing propaganda. I merely informed you that was not the case. Forbes, like hundreds of other media outlets around the world, reported on the study. It was the first study of its kind, making it newsworthy - regardless of merit. I showed you how Forbes, unlike the vast majority of the other media outlets, specifically pointed out the fundamental flaws with the study - and how the study's conclusion was flawed. Did you miss that?

When I asked how the Forbes article was attempting to convince anyone of anything, and how it was right wing propaganda - you said Forbes is a right wing propaganda machine. You claim that it was "minute detail" of the article to support your claim, (without identifying those minute details) and "clever editorial work", again without revealing what that was. I asked you to support those statements, which you wouldn't do, other than post a picture of Steve Forbes.

You then tried to claim their "capturing headline" was somehow offensive. However, their headline didn't state the findings of the study as a fact. Rather responsibly, they posed it as a question. Undaunted, you repeated the accusation and stated: "and the headline of the article leads readers to believe the study is this profound research piece that shows us through empirical evidence emphatically that "high potency" marijuana will kill us all and all marijuana users are either black or just crazy with reefer madness. In either case, drugs are baaad, mmkay!!" Really? It did nothing of the sort. It posed a question, which by definition, could not do what you just claimed. "Does High Potency Marijuana Damage The Brain?" They were questioning the study. And basically debunked the study in the article.

You then claimed that only right wing propagandist media outlets reported the study, citing the Guardian. You claim that is evidence of misinformation being disseminated by only right wing propaganda outlets. A simple Google search reveals that to be false as well. Most of the outlets reporting on the study have no political bias whatsoever, and some are pro-marijuana. For example:

http://www.welovetheherb.com/study-shows-potent-marijuana-could-cause-brain-damage
http://mjnewsnetwork.com/medical/does-high-potency-marijuana-do-more-damage-to-the-brain/
http://www.weednewsglobal.com/news/new-study-high-potency-cannabis-can-lead-to-brain-damage.html
http://weedmeme.com/news/study-high-potency-marijuana-could-cause-brain-damage-psychosis-cbs-local
http://howtogrowweed.dealszoom.com/2015/11/28/high-potency-marijuana-may-damage-brains-white-matter/
http://the420times.com/2015/12/potent-pot-affects-brain-matter-study-says/

Ah yes, all bastions of right wing propaganda.

All of your arguments about the legitimacy of the study, the THC levels, etc. are red herrings. That was never the issue. The only issue is your claim that the Forbes article is trying to convince people that the study is legit, and that by doing so they are right wing propagandists. Which is 100% false.

You know how I initially knew the study was flawed? I read the Forbes article you cited. They said so, in a very common sense and convincing manner.

By the way, you dropped your microphone. Brain damage probably.

heckler73 · Dec 1, 2015

see4 said:
Don't you know? We are the same person. Speaking of which, where's TBoneJack? or whatever his name was.

Not sure, maybe he's got a new name?

Your point about the access to the study is worthy of discussion, too.
I just got back from the last session of a seminar series on Science Policy (specifically in Canada). One of the issues we discussed regularly were the perverse incentives and misguided demands the "industry" of science foists upon the community (such as no research funding without identifiable economic benefit!). The fact the access to information is also made difficult creates a dismal environment for progress in knowledge.
This is why I am a proponent of open-access policies which lead to infrastructure such as ArXiv.org. It is that type of science publishing which has a future, not the monolithic dinosaurs of exclusivity which are demonstrably abused by the "yellow press".
At the same time, we live in a society that says "money" can't be handed out for every desire to chase after "over-unity unicorns" either. Why? I don't know. Maybe it's an issue of ForEx?

Nevertheless, that is the state of affairs. How much do you suppose the authors had to pay to get published?

But even at universities, the council found, the level of spending “has not been sufficient to keep pace with other countries that are committing more resources faster.” And while Canada doubled the number of doctoral degrees granted in science and engineering between 2006 and 2012, its labour market is doing a poor job of absorbing people with skills in scientific and technical fields.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/the-research-challenge-canadafaces/article27507029/

see4 · Dec 1, 2015

heckler73 said:
Not sure, maybe he's got a new name?

Your point about the access to the study is worthy of discussion, too.
I just got back from the last session of a seminar series on Science Policy (specifically in Canada). One of the issues we discussed regularly were the perverse incentives and misguided demands the "industry" of science foists upon the community (such as no research funding without identifiable economic benefit!). The fact the access to information is also made difficult creates a dismal environment for progress in knowledge.
This is why I am a proponent of open-access policies which lead to infrastructure such as ArXiv.org. It is that type of science publishing which has a future, not the monolithic dinosaurs of exclusivity which are demonstrably abused by the "yellow press".
At the same time, we live in a society that says "money" can't be handed out for every desire to chase after "over-unity unicorns" either. Why? I don't know. Maybe it's an issue of ForEx?

Nevertheless, that is the state of affairs. How much do you suppose the authors had to pay to get published?

But even at universities, the council found, the level of spending “has not been sufficient to keep pace with other countries that are committing more resources faster.” And while Canada doubled the number of doctoral degrees granted in science and engineering between 2006 and 2012, its labour market is doing a poor job of absorbing people with skills in scientific and technical fields.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/the-research-challenge-canadafaces/article27507029/

I think when it comes to the general well being of a large scale populous scientific research should be freely disseminated across as many outlets as [freely] as possible.

But I think what's worse is yellow press, and the many forms it takes on. Right wing propaganda machines like to cast opinion in the form of questions. And that fundamentally deters many people anyway from even reading anything they provide, no matter its content. Case in point, Forbes. The fact that we can no longer trust media "news" outlets of any kind is truly the sad state of affairs. What happened to the days of Tom Brokaw and 60 Minutes providing actual real news that everyone could take at face value?

see4 · Dec 1, 2015

pabloesqobar said:
By the way, you dropped your microphone. Brain damage probably.

I offended you, and for that I am sorry. I did not realize you were sensitive. I will keep that in mind in the future.

------------

--------------

No, those are not right wing propagandist media outlets. They are worse -- they are simple news aggregates who's sole purpose is to try and generate revenue. There is nothing news worthy or credible about any of the sources you just listed.

I'm going to ask you again; What is your point when wasting your energy debating me? And, how have you derived [so quickly] that Forbes is not a right wing propagandists? Please note you told us you've never read Forbes before. Are you basing your "100% false" claim on the fact that the op-ed article posted by Forbes is not perceived by you as insinuating or biased? Or is it merely that you tend to be right leaning yourself and get your panties in a bunch when someone besmirches your higher than mighty religion?

see4 · Dec 1, 2015

pabloesqobar said:
All of your arguments about the legitimacy of the study, the THC levels, etc. are red herrings. That was never the issue. The only issue is your claim that the Forbes article is trying to convince people that the study is legit, and that by doing so they are right wing propagandists. Which is 100% false.

You know how I initially knew the study was flawed? I read the Forbes article you cited. They said so, in a very common sense and convincing manner.

Is this what convinced you?

Because to me, I interpreted this as being Forbes' "first to publish" damaging evidence that "drugs are baaad mmkay" and the author merely offered a vague [at best] devils advocate. As he continues to say that there are a plethora of other studies to show it is damaging, they just don't know how, but they just know it is.

You just are not getting it. That's ok, I'm not here to convince you.

heckler73 · Dec 2, 2015

see4 said:
The fact that we can no longer trust media "news" outlets of any kind is truly the sad state of affairs. What happened to the days of Tom Brokaw and 60 Minutes providing actual real news that everyone could take at face value?

Oh I asked that question a lot in the late 90s with tabloid journalism making more headway. The cost of information has plummeted with the internet, but the tradeoff is quality of report. It requires one to consult many sources now to filter noise and "find the signal". If one consumes traditional media, it is perhaps wise to treat it like Wikipedia; a great place to start, but not necessarily the best to quote.

see4 · Dec 2, 2015

heckler73 said:
Oh I asked that question a lot in the late 90s with tabloid journalism making more headway. The cost of information has plummeted with the internet, but the tradeoff is quality of report. It requires one to consult many sources now to filter noise and "find the signal". If one consumes traditional media, it is perhaps wise to treat it like Wikipedia; a great place to start, but not necessarily the best to quote.

Could not have said it better myself. That, and it's Obama's fault.

pabloesqobar · Dec 3, 2015

see4 said:
I offended you, and for that I am sorry. I did not realize you were sensitive. I will keep that in mind in the future.

------------
View attachment 3555477
--------------

No, those are not right wing propagandist media outlets. They are worse -- they are simple news aggregates who's sole purpose is to try and generate revenue. There is nothing news worthy or credible about any of the sources you just listed.

I'm going to ask you again; What is your point when wasting your energy debating me? And, how have you derived [so quickly] that Forbes is not a right wing propagandists? Please note you told us you've never read Forbes before. Are you basing your "100% false" claim on the fact that the op-ed article posted by Forbes is not perceived by you as insinuating or biased? Or is it merely that you tend to be right leaning yourself and get your panties in a bunch when someone besmirches your higher than mighty religion?

Whether Forbes is, in general, a right wing propaganda outlet is irrelevant. We're only discussing the one (1) article about the London pot study. Not sure why you can't comprehend that.

It appears you are suggesting that anyone who cites that flawed study is guilty of right wing propaganda. While not saying how it is right wing propaganda. News media cites studies all the time, regardless of merit, if it is newsworthy. You are not the arbiter of what is newsworthy or not. Because you don't agree with the study, nor do I, does not mean merely writing about it makes them right wing propagandists trying to convince the public of the efficacy of that study.

I simply said asserting the Forbes article is trying to convince the public of the validity of that study, and therefore right wing propaganda is 100% false. I have no political or religious affiliations. It make's it easier to detect when someone is spreading [mis]information, like you did.

You first Decreed that it was right wing propaganda. Then, when confronted, you claimed there was some magical "clever editorial work" which you refuse to identify. Then, you claim the "capturing headline" was misleading, but still refuse to say how that is so.

Now, you suddenly claim I am a right winger, which couldn't be further from the truth. Well, when the facts and logic won't work - attack the person you are debating with. How very Fox News'ish of you.

By your very definition, given that you started a thread about this study on a popular online site, and posted it . . .

You are a right wing propagandist.

see4 · Dec 3, 2015

pabloesqobar said:
Whether Forbes is, in general, a right wing propaganda outlet is irrelevant.

That's the entire point of the thread. It is absolutely relevant. Not just Forbes, as that was just one example. As I've stated repeatedly. Not sure why you can't comprehend that.

pabloesqobar said:
It appears you are suggesting that anyone who cites that flawed study is guilty of right wing propaganda. While not saying how it is right wing propaganda. News media cites studies all the time, regardless of merit, if it is newsworthy. You are not the arbiter of what is newsworthy or not. Because you don't agree with the study, nor do I, does not mean merely writing about it makes them right wing propagandists trying to convince the public of the efficacy of that study.

I simply said asserting the Forbes article is trying to convince the public of the validity of that study, and therefore right wing propaganda is 100% false. I have no political or religious affiliations. It make's it easier to detect when someone is spreading [mis]information, like you did.

No, I am asserting that the article does not invalidate the study, but merely offers vague devils advocate thoughts, of which they go into no detail about. What misinformation have I provided? Are we fixated on me calling Forbes a right wing propaganda machine? Because I've already covered that 4 or 5 times already. I do believe your reading comprehension is failing you. I will reiterate again. I am not basing my description of Forbes based solely on the link I provided, I am merely illustrating how they are. You find that the article is is not in fact spreading propaganda and in fact the article is totally invalidating and countering the research claim, which is not accurate, and you are wrong in your interpretation, as I've explained.

pabloesqobar said:
You first Decreed that it was right wing propaganda. Then, when confronted, you claimed there was some magical "clever editorial work" which you refuse to identify. Then, you claim the "capturing headline" was misleading, but still refuse to say how that is so.

I first decree, and continue to do so, Forbes and the like are right wing propaganda machines. Do you disagree?

Failed to identify clever editorial work & capturing headline? Ok, I suppose you don't see the obviousness of it. And you are clearly not keen to how Fox News manipulates its viewership by use of suggestive headlines. Please let me know if you still have trouble with this one, I can hold your hand through it if you like.

pabloesqobar said:
Now, you suddenly claim I am a right winger, which couldn't be further from the truth. Well, when the facts and logic won't work - attack the person you are debating with. How very Fox News'ish of you.

No, I attack you because you're a dipshit without a cause. What exactly are you after? Admitting fault? There is none to admit. Are you defending Forbes and its credibility? Are you defending the author of the article? What is your point in all this? What's your cause?

pabloesqobar said:
You are a right wing propagandist.

When it comes to guns, I am.

Harrekin · Dec 4, 2015

see4 said:
That's the entire point of the thread. It is absolutely relevant. Not just Forbes, as that was just one example. As I've stated repeatedly. Not sure why you can't comprehend that.

No, I am asserting that the article does not invalidate the study, but merely offers vague devils advocate thoughts, of which they go into no detail about. What misinformation have I provided? Are we fixated on me calling Forbes a right wing propaganda machine? Because I've already covered that 4 or 5 times already. I do believe your reading comprehension is failing you. I will reiterate again. I am not basing my description of Forbes based solely on the link I provided, I am merely illustrating how they are. You find that the article is is not in fact spreading propaganda and in fact the article is totally invalidating and countering the research claim, which is not accurate, and you are wrong in your interpretation, as I've explained.

I first decree, and continue to do so, Forbes and the like are right wing propaganda machines. Do you disagree?

Failed to identify clever editorial work & capturing headline? Ok, I suppose you don't see the obviousness of it. And you are clearly not keen to how Fox News manipulates its viewership by use of suggestive headlines. Please let me know if you still have trouble with this one, I can hold your hand through it if you like.

No, I attack you because you're a dipshit without a cause. What exactly are you after? Admitting fault? There is none to admit. Are you defending Forbes and its credibility? Are you defending the author of the article? What is your point in all this? What's your cause?

When it comes to guns, I am.

see4 · Dec 4, 2015

Harrekin said:

But but but, Megyn said it, Santa is white. What's there to debate? Amiright pablo?

As a side note, I hate Fox News, but I would raw dog Megyn Kelly, and would most definitely go ass to mouth with her. Unlikely she'd let me, but a man's gotta dream, amiright?

Harrekin · Dec 4, 2015

see4 said:
But but but, Megyn said it, Santa is white. What's there to debate? Amiright pablo?

As a side note, I hate Fox News, but I would raw dog Megyn Kelly, and would most definitely go ass to mouth with her. Unlikely she'd let me, but a man's gotta dream, amiright?

I thought you were a "manhole inspector"...?

see4 · Dec 4, 2015

Harrekin said:
I thought you were a "manhole inspector"...?

Is that what you want me to be? Does that make you horny?

Harrekin · Dec 4, 2015

see4 said:
Is that what you want me to be? Does that make you horny?

Im not gay, but it definately doesn't freak me out either.

I could even tell you if a man was good looking or not without being personally attracted to them, but it just doesn't do it for me.

Arguibly it'd be an easier way of life tho, you could fuck your partner and then roll over and watch football, etc together.

abalonehx · Dec 4, 2015

heckler73 said:
That dangly-eyed zombie in the fedora sure looks familiar. I'm pretty sure I've seen him injecting the marihuanas, maybe even "skunk-like" marihuanas.

Man, the Skunx is deadly dangerous.
The 2 hippies in the center just shared only half a roach of the skunx.
The people surrounding them were only exposed to second-hand skunx smoke.
Skunx is so addictive, fedora man's eye popped out just trying to get a better look at the skunx.

see4 · Dec 4, 2015

Harrekin said:
Im not gay, but it definately doesn't freak me out either.

I could even tell you if a man was good looking or not without being personally attracted to them, but it just doesn't do it for me.

Arguibly it'd be an easier way of life tho, you could fuck your partner and then roll over and watch football, etc together.

I'm not gay either, but that Tom Hardy fella makes me wanna have...

Harrekin · Dec 4, 2015

abalonehx said:
Man, the Skunx is deadly dangerous.
The 2 hippies in the center just shared only half a roach of the skunx.
The people surrounding them were only exposed to second-hand skunx smoke.
Skunx is so addictive, fedora man's eye popped out just trying to get a better look at the skunx.

Im "abusing it" right now...

Damn skunkz0rz.

abalonehx · Dec 4, 2015

I'm high as hell on some skunk-like substance :shock:

Harrekin · Dec 4, 2015

abalonehx said:
I'm high as hell on some skunk-like substance

Should be class a+++

"This ain't your grandaddy's weed"

...thats kinda the point tho

pabloesqobar · Dec 5, 2015

see4 said:
That's the entire point of the thread. It is absolutely relevant. Not just Forbes, as that was just one example.

Really. Huh. You start a thread titled "skunk like marihuana leads to brain dead hippies says the yellow press". And you link a news source which reported on the London study about pot.

The next link you post is the Forbes article about the same London study about pot. Wherein you claim Forbes is trying to convince us that the study is true, that high potency marijuana causes brain damage, and that by doing so is engaging in right wing propaganda. Which was not the case. Our entire debate is based on my criticism of this claim, your attempts to paint it otherwise notwithstanding.

And now, you claim the entire point of the thread is that Forbes, is in general, a right wing propagandist media outlet, and not about the London pot study? And in support of that, you cite an article that is probably the worst article you could have chosen to support your claim?

see4 said:
What misinformation have I provided? Are we fixated on me calling Forbes a right wing propaganda machine? You find that the article is is not in fact spreading propaganda and in fact the article is totally invalidating and countering the research claim, which is not accurate, and you are wrong in your interpretation, as I've explained.

The misinformation you provided is insisting the Forbes article about the London pot study is attempting to convince us that the study is valid, that high potency marijuana causes brain damage, and therefore engaging in right wing propaganda. That, and your claim that the "capturing headline" is somehow misleading.

Show me where I've ever said the article is "totally invalidating and countering the research claim". You continue to misrepresent my position. I've already linked what the author said. The author is under no obligation to get a PhD in neurobiology in order to report on a first of its kind study. Not her job. Despite that, she pointed out what she saw as very obvious flaws in the conclusion the report reached.

see4 said:
I first decree, and continue to do so, Forbes and the like are right wing propaganda machines. Do you disagree?

I don't know, the only issue is the article about the London pot study. Remember, the one that this entire thread is based on, and that you cited? Forbes could be run by Mr. Forbes, Newt Gingrinch and Dick Cheney for all I care. I'm only focused on that one article.

see4 said:
Failed to identify clever editorial work & capturing headline?

Yes. Please quote me the portions of that article where the author is "trying to convince us" that the London pot study is valid and that high potency marijuana leads to brain damage. Then, explain how by doing so, they are engaging in right wing propaganda. Finally, explain how the "capturing headline" is likewise right wing propaganda.

see4 said:
No, I attack you because you're a dipshit without a cause.

LOL! Dipshit without a cause. Keep up those lame attacks. Makes you seem like you know what you're talking about. I suppose it's better than being a dipshit without a clue.

see4 said:
What exactly are you after? Admitting fault? There is none to admit. Are you defending Forbes and its credibility? Are you defending the author of the article? What is your point in all this? What's your cause?

Why do you ask?

see4 said:
When it comes to guns, I am.

Perhaps the second thing we agree on.

So, let's recap: You claim the "capturing headline" is misleading, and therefore right wing propaganda. Your headline: "skunk like marihuana leads to brain dead hippies says the yellow press". Which you now say is really about the general nature of Forbes being a right wing propagandist media outlet, and not about the London study.

By your definition, you are a right wing propagandist, engaging in a "capturing thread title" which doesn't mean what it actually says.

Next, you claim the entire point of this thread is only about how Forbes (and their ilk, presumably) are all right wing propagandists. You continually misrepresent my position, refuse to support your claims, try to steer the focus on anything other than your claim about the Forbes article. That, by definition, would be "clever editorial work". Again, more evidence that you are, in fact, a right wing propagandist. Are you a writer for a media outlet that engages in right propaganda? Because it's beginning to seem like it.

Finally, I read the London study. Know where I found it? By clicking on the links in the very first article you provided, which you also apparently didn't read. :dunce:

Skunk Like Marihuana Leads to Brain dead hippies! Says the yellow press.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member