Search
Username

Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: Culture

Re: “Celebri-weed

I think your comments about Gene Simmons are ridiculous. As a businessman, if he sees Cannabis as a good investment...what is wrong with that? He also speaks highly about the medicinal value of Cannabis. Regarding recreational use...even if he does not smoke weed, he clearly feels that people are free to make up their own minds about what they want to do. So...your comment is simply stupid! And to reference a negative article in another publication seems irrelevant. What a joke!

Posted by Open Minded on 09/19/2018 at 2:25 PM

Re: “Should We Legalize All Drugs? Discuss

"selling drugs with no benefit and a high risk of death seems a poor solution". This is a flawed argument. First of all, all drugs have at least one benefit, they get you high.

Also, who told you it was a high risk of death. Actually, cocaine isn't physically addictive and opium is less dangerous than alcohol and has more medical properties, it's a pain killer. Heroin can kill you with overdose, but only if you use it irresponsibly, which you're more likely to do if you aren't told how to use it properly. In fact, morphine is still used in hospitals, I had a friend who had brain cancer who actually bragged to me that they let her have morphine.

All drugs should be made legal because the drug laws are immoral and unjust. This was never about whether or not drugs are dangerous, drugs are usually pretty safe when used correctly. Some are worse for your body than others, like donuts are worse for you than kale, but donuts taste better.

The drug laws should be repealed. I mean, not only are punishments racist, but they were racially motivated to begin with. "the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races", said Harry Anslinger. This worked to convince people to outlaw it in 1937. The laws capitalize on the supporting ideologies that blacks have a different physiology so they react to the drugs differently than whites, by raping white women and murdering people.

So keeping the laws around keeps this idea that blacks have a different physiology around. It's where they come from, it's what they do. It doesn't keep them around in the way that not everyone knows that, just people smart enough to look up some history on google and every person still in favor of these laws. The idea that there are medical reasons is unfounded not just when it comes to marijuana, although marijuana does have numerous health benefits, but unfounded for other drugs as well.

Just look at alcohol. Alcohol is a dangerous drug. Drink too much of it at one time and you can die. It has no health benefits, actually it's hard for the body to digest and makes you puke if you drink too much as well. It makes you pee a lot.

Despite all this people enjoy drinking it, and can do it relatively safely and live a long healthy life. Or they won't stop, we loved them, and they drank themselves to death that selfish bastard.

Despite this medical reasons to outlaw it and simply not allow it, don't necessarily work. This is because arresting people for hurting themselves when they're doing no harm to others, is fundamentally wrong. Also, the person could be using the drug in moderation. You could have arrested a person who is an occasional alcohol user. Arresting and killing people isn't a solution to the people who drink themselves to death.

I mean, we have enough medical reasons to outlaw guns too, and certainly arsenic, but both those things are legal. I mean, a gun was designed to kill things it doesn't do anything else using it safely is a ridiculous idea you'll just destroy something not alive how's that better. Meanwhile you may kill yourself with alcohol, or you may not, you may be a responsible adult and understand the danger involved.

All drugs, are safer than letting people walk around with guns, yet guns are perfectly legal. That's because drugs are made to get people high, to give them pleasure, not to kill them. Marijuana simply can't kill you. Yet still, people are arrested, killed, and ostracized from society for it. This is about the rights of the drug user to be a person again, who sought pleasure for pleasures sake, in an innocent enough way, by taking a strange plant cooked up by a mad scientist friend, and giving them respect, and not dehumanizing them. So quit dehumanizing me the drug user, and never arrest a drug user again.

Posted by Mary Skolnik on 09/16/2018 at 1:26 PM

Re: “Leafly, the Book

I am suffering from insomnia, I hardly want to sleep all night but my insomnia doesn't want too.. I woke up early for work having 2hrs of sleep only because of this matter. I came across this article https://www.bonzaseeds.com/blog/purple-sour-diesel/ saying that this strain induces full-body relaxation. It helps soothe the muscles, thus relieving chronic pain and nausea.. Did someone already use this kind of treatment? Thankyou

Posted by scot on 09/12/2018 at 7:39 PM

Re: “Home Improvements Outpacing New Home Construction

It seems to me that now projects to improve homes are ahead of new construction because the country's economy has fallen over the past 15 years, and not everyone can afford to build a house now. Naturally, to improve the old house is several times cheaper than to build a new one, because the improvement of houses skipped the construction of new houses. Moreover, now it is very cheap to do a small cosmetic repair, especially if you know where to find cheaper contractor - on such sites as angieslist.com, servicewhale.com, homeadvisor.com.

Posted by Michael Bilenko on 08/30/2018 at 1:20 AM

Re: “Skeptical Activism: Removing the Spin

People like Dee are what we call pseudoskeptics or pathological skeptics. They pretend to be skeptical of "dodgy" claims, practice critical thinking and adhere to scientific principles but they rarely ever do. As you see here, Dee continually makes grand purely faith-based pronouncements but is completely unable or unwilling to support them in any way, because you can't provide evidence for what doesn't exist.

Instead of rationally dealing with the topic at hand he attempts to malign people by introducing irrelevant information. An actual skeptic will be skeptical of those who steadfastly refuse to support the claims they make, substitute ridicule for evidence or redirect attention away from the topic at hand.

Posted by Michael Fullerton on 08/29/2018 at 1:59 PM

Re: “Skeptical Activism: Removing the Spin

LOL indeed, "Michael."

You apparently never tire of repeating yourself, so I will repsond in kind (from my previous post): Perhaps I would attack your arguments if the Novella debate (which was summarized in the Vice article) did not already prove that engaging in any debate with you is fruitless. Your arguments are not science based and your logic is unsound. I find your obfuscation of science offensive and dangerous.

Your attacks on fact- and science-based skepticism would possibly carry a modicum of weight, if any semblance rational credibility wasn't forfeited by your ridiculous 911 conspiracy theory. If you sincerely apologize for your pathological 911 truther quest and denounce it as the uneducated, attention-grabbing, nonsensical trash that it has been proven to be, I might consider engaging you on another subject.

And now, for something not quite completely different, as an example of your "logic":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

This is my last post on this subject.

Posted by Dee M on 08/29/2018 at 11:44 AM

Re: “Skeptical Activism: Removing the Spin

LOL "Dee", your posts consist of nothing but logical fallacies. Here you continue with your attacks and pepper these with raving pronouncements of unadulterated faith (bare assertion fallacies). This is all "skeptics" like you can do to support your grossly distorted view of science and critical thinking.

Hopefully the rational readers here will understand that your contributions are nothing but a diversion away from the imminently serious topic at hand, the scientific and critical thinking butchery meted out in Dunnings recent documentary. Perhaps my article contained some errors? Why then doesn't someone rationally point them out rather than engage in attacks and other sophomoric diversions? To me that is always a clue: when arguments can't be attacked, the arguer is attacked instead. Talk about playground tactics.

Posted by Michael Fullerton on 08/28/2018 at 12:46 PM

Re: “Skeptical Activism: Removing the Spin

Once again, Michael, you are the king of projection. Your penchant for employing the playground tactic of "I know you are, but what am I" is exhausting and pathetic.

Obviously, you are desperate for attention when you share a link to an article you wrote - on a website that you manage (and apparently created) - to garner hits. Continuing this tactic by providing 2 more links to your website, as a counterpoint to the well researched Vice article, becomes even more laughable knowing that YOU wrote those 2 linked articles. You continue to defend yourself with your own flawed circular logic...what a surprise.

My reference to the Vice article was to give any readers who may be following this thread, context into your agenda: self promotion built from an easily (and repeatedly) debunked conspiracy theory. The best part of my first post is that it provided a link to an article written by someone who objectively followed a public discourse (providing a link to the debate transcript) and came to the same rational conclusion about your viewpoints as myself.

Perhaps I would attack your arguments if the Novella debate (which was summarized in the Vice article) did not already prove that engaging in any debate with you is fruitless. Your arguments are not science based and your logic is unsound. I find your obfuscation of science offensive and dangerous.

Posted by Dee M on 08/28/2018 at 12:27 PM

Re: “An Alt CBD

I like your writing style. You made me laugh while educating me.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by JStars on 08/27/2018 at 11:36 AM

Re: “Skeptical Activism: Removing the Spin

I've committed no ad hominem. I suspect you have no idea what this fallacy is. This fallacy involves attacking a person instead of dealing with the person's argument. Like you've done here.

You've actually committed this fallacy by refusing to address the points my article exposes about Dunning and instead post a completely irrelevant Vice hack job involved a debate I've had with another "skeptic". Your attacking me instead of my arguments.

The following article shows how I was not in any way crushed by Novella. The next shows Vice's complete lack of journalistic integrity.

http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=330
http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=341

Posted by Michael Fullerton on 08/27/2018 at 10:42 AM

Re: “Skeptical Activism: Removing the Spin

Hey Michael:

I do find it curious that you - who apparently lives in Canada - quickly responded to a free small town publication. You did this to provide a link to a review on your website criticising one of Brian's works. Your first paragraph of this review is also a blatant ad hominem attack on Brian...project much, Michael?

Regardless, The fact that you don't live in central Oregon, but felt compelled to weigh in on this article is enough information to trust Brian's comments. Oh, that and this article summarizing your 2014 debate with Dr. Steven Novella (who, BTW, totally CRUSHED you and your absurdly delusional 911 truther vomit) :

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/539dex/are-911-truthers-still-science-proof

Posted by Dee M on 08/25/2018 at 12:00 PM

Re: “Drudge Report

Oh well, it looks like NOBODY read your slander of Thomas Kinkade's
"ugly" paintings at all.
Maybe get a truck driving job or waiting tables. Good luck.

Posted by Steven Austen on 08/25/2018 at 10:17 AM

Re: “Skeptical Activism: Removing the Spin

A couple of things to ask yourself:

1) how would Brian know what Google alerts I have setup? He is either simply lying about me as a pathetic attempt to discredit me or he somehow (terrifyingly) has access to my personal Google account. Which is it Brian?

2) why would he attack me instead of attack the arguments I made about his film? What he is employing here is a boringly common fallacy called ad hominem, attack the person not the argument. This champion of "critical thinking" employs fallacies (the direct opposite of critical thinking) instead of reasoned debate.

Posted by Michael Fullerton on 08/24/2018 at 9:44 PM

Re: “Skeptical Activism: Removing the Spin

Actually I do encourage people -- if you can stomach some pretty far-out thinking -- to click on Michael Fullerton's blog that he links above. He is one of a number of well-known people with Google Alerts set up for a large number of science writers and public science communicators, and he posts something similar to this anytime one of our names comes up. (Think of Don Quixote mixed with Alex Jones.)

It's a fascinating glimpse into the kind of mind that guarantees science communicators are going to have our hands full for the foreseeable future.

Posted by BrianDunning on 08/24/2018 at 8:59 PM

Re: “Skeptical Activism: Removing the Spin

For anyone looking for an alternate look at Brian Dunning and his latest film you can check out this recent review at Skeptopathy Magazine: http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=502

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Michael Fullerton on 08/24/2018 at 4:03 AM

Re: “Drudge Report

How dare you slander a wonderful American artist who painted over 1000 beautiful paintings without computers or abstract.
Kinkade family foundation is still helping children all around the world!
Admit that you never even researched Thom's amazing work. You just like
to spew your awful opinions into your article. Get a new job! goodbye!

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by Steven Austen on 08/16/2018 at 9:46 AM

Re: “Should We Legalize All Drugs? Discuss

I find it a bit cynical to discuss legalization of drugs (and therefore ending the Drug War) in purely financial terms. They need to be discussed, but at most as an afterthought.

There is a massive incalculable human toll that the Drug War has taken. Kidnappings, gang violence, assassinations, murdering of journalists, crossfire, forced grows, paramilitary counter-violence, gun smuggling, and war have all come from the militarized policing of production of narcotics.

On the supply side, we have turf wars, more gang violence, and what is criminal and corrupt on a state level: mass incarceration. An analysis by Bryan Stevenson bluntly and pointedly puts out: Slavery never ended, it just evolved. It is no longer controversial history that Nixon and his cronies used the pretense of the drug war to criminalize black America. The results are 3 million behind bars, most are people of color.

And then there is the addiction, homelessness, and mental health crisis.

And then there is the military crackdown on poor farmers in South and Central America, forced from poverty and coercion to grow.

And then there is the problem of government sponsored drug smuggling.

And then there is the issue of so called border and airport security.

And then there is the dark web and cryptocurrency fraud.

All manor of embezzlement, money laundering, and financial crimes of the rich proliferate as bankers in $5000 suits move capital, knowingly, profiting off the suffering of the small producers and dealers trickling down from large suppliers.

Not to mention the geopolitical effects; political corruption abounds in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico as cartels bully politicians and the media, with a large death toll behind them.

This is bigger than your stupid drug habit. This is bigger than your stupid state taxes. This is about ending one of the largest failures of ostensible morality in human history.

This is about ending a penal approach to a medical crisis, and ending the slavery of millions.

This is about shifting away from forced production of narcotics and back to cash crops and susbistence farming.

This is about restoring the dignity of millions across the globe, caught in the crossfires of a pointlessly black market that causes profit marginst to be so high that they create multiple massive competing industrial level crime syndicates.

It's time to legalize all drugs, now.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by LeafyLief on 08/03/2018 at 8:37 PM

Re: “Of Kings and Queens

Buncha pedophiles.

0 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by Todd Nickerson on 08/02/2018 at 6:20 PM

Re: “Housing Bubble Concerns

dont poot. don't ever poot.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Robert Boone on 07/20/2018 at 2:03 PM

Re: “Think It, Make It

Great article! I found these https://bit.ly/2uly1Rt woodworking plans very helpful to me. Maybe some others will also

Posted by Bill Rose on 07/20/2018 at 12:02 PM

Top Viewed Stories

Join Our Newsletter


© 2018 LAY IT OUT INC | 704 NW GEORGIA, BEND, OREGON 97703  |   Privacy Policy

Website powered by Foundation