The Latest Study in the 'Anti-Cannabis Campaign'

hyphyjoose

hyphyjoose

Well-Known Member
I think the science presented is actually pretty good. I just dislike how it's being misrepresented--the article headlines with marijuana being worse than alcohol, even though that alleged fact only pertains to nearly 1 out of 6 users. It's not a fair representation of cannabis dependent users.

Also, some of the foundations (like Jacobs Foundation) do really good work for people around the world. No reason to discredit them. I'd be more interested in knowing what kind of socioeconomic environment the participants were selected from (were a majority already indigent to some degree?)--once we can see THAT data, I feel we can make a better interpretation of the end product
 
curious2garden

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
hyphyjoose said:
I think the science presented is actually pretty good. I just dislike how it's being misrepresented--the article headlines with marijuana being worse than alcohol, even though that alleged fact only pertains to nearly 1 out of 6 users. It's not a fair representation of cannabis dependent users.

Also, some of the foundations (like Jacobs Foundation) do really good work for people around the world. No reason to discredit them. I'd be more interested in knowing what kind of socioeconomic environment the participants were selected from (were a majority already indigent to some degree?)--once we can see THAT data, I feel we can make a better interpretation of the end product
Click to expand...
Argumentum ad verecundiam
 
hyphyjoose

hyphyjoose

Well-Known Member
curious2garden said:
Argumentum ad verecundiam
Click to expand...
That doesn't apply to this article. The Jacobs Foundation didn't release the data nor did they investigate the reported government data(criminal charges, dmv records, things like that). Jacobs Foundation merely gave a grant for the research.

Edit: I also wanted to say that ad verecundiam applies to things like "Do this because we're the police and the police say it is correct, so it must be correct"
 
hyphyjoose

hyphyjoose

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
There is the argumentum right there. "They're cool ... so their data is all cool too." She nailed you legit.
Click to expand...
She didn't nail anything. Like I said, the data doesn't come from the Jacobs Foundation.

The same argument could be made against you guys right now-- "We smoke pot everyday, so we know that it has no affect on us negatively. Even though I'm not a doctor, nor an agency that has access to certain records", etc. I'm not trying to start a flame war or fight, I'd rather keep it on topic.I just want to show why it doesn't apply, and that if anything you guys are using an emotional appeal fallacy
 
curious2garden

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
hyphyjoose said:
She didn't nail anything. Like I said, the data doesn't come from the Jacobs Foundation.

The same argument could be made against you guys right now-- "We smoke pot everyday, so we know that it has no affect on us negatively. Even though I'm not a doctor, nor an agency that has access to certain records", etc. I'm not trying to start a flame war or fight, I'd rather keep it on topic.I just want to show why it doesn't apply, and that if anything you guys are using an emotional appeal fallacy
Click to expand...
LOL not a doctor...... that's ok we only play Ph.D./M.D. on the internet LOL
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
hyphyjoose said:
She didn't nail anything. Like I said, the data doesn't come from the Jacobs Foundation.
Click to expand...
Not relevant to what we're saying. You made a fallacious argument on the strength of their "rep". That is pure argumentum ad verecundiam - argument to authority.
The same argument could be made against you guys right now-- "We smoke pot everyday, so we know that it has no affect on us negatively. Even though I'm not a doctor, nor an agency that has access to certain records", etc.
Click to expand...
We aren't making that argument. I detect a straw man.
I'm not trying to start a flame war or fight, I'd rather keep it on topic.I just want to show why it doesn't apply, and that if anything you guys are using an emotional appeal fallacy
Click to expand...
Please do show why it doesn't apply. Please use simple derivable logic; have pity on us non-doctor sorts.
 
Singlemalt

Singlemalt

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Not relevant to what we're saying. You made a fallacious argument on the strength of their "rep". That is pure argumentum ad verecundiam - argument to authority. We aren't making that argument. I detect a straw man.

Please do show why it doesn't apply. Please use simple derivable logic; have pity on us non-doctor sorts.
Click to expand...
It depends on what kind of non-doctor sorts we are
 
hyphyjoose

hyphyjoose

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Not relevant to what we're saying. You made a fallacious argument on the strength of their "rep". That is pure argumentum ad verecundiam - argument to authority. We aren't making that argument. I detect a straw man.

Please do show why it doesn't apply. Please use simple derivable logic; have pity on us non-doctor sorts.
Click to expand...
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 emboldened 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
 
hyphyjoose

hyphyjoose

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
now pinch hitting for Unclebaldrick...#555...tangerine green...

what's this thread about?
Click to expand...
The entire point of the thread was to get a feel on what the day-to-day stoners @ RIU lives are like, in contrast to the article (are you guys poor and socially immobile? stressed? mid life problems as described in the study?). It got overshadowed by egotistical people throwing latin around and turning it into some stupid point of contention
 
Singlemalt

Singlemalt

Well-Known Member
hyphyjoose said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top