• 0 Posts
  • 194 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 7th, 2023

help-circle




  • You’ve had plenty of time to prove your claim that marijuana is an important medicine and anyone who disagrees must be citing Fox news, and yet all you have been able to do is act incredulous that there might be a more effective methodology for finding relevant research than a keyword search. The amount of relevant high-quality papers is not in the thousands, it’s not even in the hundreds. You arrived at your conclusion by the most useless and sophmoric methodology and are acting smug because you (supposedly) teach an introductory class to highschool graduates. Guess what dipshit? We don’t use your shitty lessons.

    “Then we can talk”

    You already admitted that you don’t understand pharmacology so what exactly do you think you’re going to talk about? How you still don’t understand how to perform graph traversal to find related studies?



  • “the past 30 days”

    So you literally don’t know how drug tests work? Marijuana clears an oral test in about a day, most jobs that test for it simply tell you to come back the next day. This is in legal state, and covers the vast majority of jobs. If you can’t be sober for a full 24-hrs before a pre-employment check you’re an addict. This would be like if someone admitted to being drunk the morning of an interview.

    “Neither of those details speaks to sobriety at work”

    Again you’re confused by the efficacy of drug tests. If you can’t be sober for 1 or 2 days to get your job that you applied for, it’s far less likely that you are going to be sober on the clock. (Few places do uranalysis, and I’ve literally never heard of a blood or hair test which are the ones that actually can reliably test that far back).

    Strictly speaking you cannot prove that the person who shot heroin during your interview, is also going to do drugs on the clock. It is however a very good indicator that they are unprofessional, will be a bad employee and are quite likely to drugs on the clock. Companies don’t just spend thousands of dollars a year to be cruel to employees.






  • Exploiting a double meaning; nobody claims that a fetuses right to life is greater than the mothers. You are conflating someone’s lifestyle choice with a right to life. Guess what? Society is based on restricting lifestyle choices, you can’t just scream and yell at everyone you meet. You’ll face repercussions that deter such behaviour.

    “It doesn’t have thoughts or feelings to protect”

    And you think this is why killing is wrong? You realise that these are emergent properties of neurological behaviour? You can’t even possess thoughts or feelings without some time interval, so by that criteria you should be killable so long as your brain hasn’t established a pattern sufficient to be considered a thought? In other words you can be killed at any moment so long as it is fast enough.

    “That’s scientific”

    You say to a scientist. Boy do I love when lay people try to incorrectly appeal to abductive reasoning.

    FYI, also an atheist, another hilarious intellectual faux pas on your behalf.



  • “I’m not trying to be pedantic”

    You’re just being wrong.

    “That’s just racist”

    No. Claiming that there is a historical reason behind why black people are better athletes isn’t racism. It’s an attempted description, it’s no different than describing environmental pressures for sickle-cell. (I personally don’t know if the description is correct, but I hear it predominately from very pro-black activists, primarily trying to prove that all black reproduction was actually rape).

    “Eugenics and racism”

    That’s not an endorsement of eugenics, and eugenics is not the same as racism.

    “They’re bigots and like having racist thoughts because it serves the bigotry”

    What do you think racism and bigotry are? Isn’t racism a subset of bigotry? How does this statement make sense? Or any of yours for that matter?