Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Dreadnote wrote:Say what you like about dogma, but I can honestly say I've never seen him leave an argument shouting "You're a troll, everything you say is wrong, I'm tired of arguing, and also I object to your use of words that I don't understand".

Keep it up, man

He probably should, he's arguing with some college kids yak-back that he filled up after smoking a pretty big bowl one day.

However his propensity to e-fight everyone about every post they put up is very very irritating.

As is your propensity to drop the science without checking your arguments or really interfacing with anyone elses. You basically construct and argue against effigies while people try to talk to you around the straw.

well I don't expect to change anyone's views when they are completely incapable of admitting that they may just be wrong in the face of someone with greater experience.

Unless you're in a biomedical field, logical phi field, or work in some form of administrative think tank then all the experience you have on him involves smoking up and looking at how large your hands are. None of which I believe he has been arguing against.

He's already said he doesn't care about credibility, and that no matter what evidence is provided he feels it is incorrect. Its ok, I like to say that people are wrong when they don't agree with me too! Everyone does.

That isn't what he said, but the fact that he's explained thats not what he said like four times and you're still hammering that point implies pretty heavily that you did a whole lot of research before sitting at your computer and have an axe to grind.

However in this case he's trolling....in the most literal sense of the word. By obfuscating the actual point of his posts (what were they again?) he takes the focus off of the actual subject under discussion and turns it into yet another "Dogma point by point response to every question in a thread while supporting no stance in particular" that contributes NOTHING to the conversation in the thread.

You hadn't exactly been holding a very cognizant or meaningful conversation before his entry and you didn't do to well in his stead regardless. Smokers think they know law and biology, usually they don't have a particularly meaningful grasp of either and it shows strongly.

Reminds me of kids on the play ground saying "Neyner neyner, I bet I'm smarter than you"....which is the standard MO for several posters on here. <yawn> get some new tricks....I'm not impressed.

Hows that straw man coming along? You got a hangin' place all set up or is this just sort of a dollmaking hobby at this point?

I don't discount his opinion because he never brings up a valid point, I discount it because its pure idiocy to sit and argue that you know more about a subject and are more correct in your analysis than someone who has an education and years of professional experience.

You discount them because you are incapable of actually interfacing with them. You refuse to try, as you refuse to try with the opposite side in most arguments you hold dear.

Please, by all means tell me how Dogma's relentless barrage of verbosity establishes ANY crediblity for his stance.

Words combine to form sentences which are a basic component of language and communication.

Here's a tip, it doesn't.

Snorlax.

Again, using feline research papers from 70 years ago is NOT a valid "factual basis" for modern medical or clinical information.

I think he was using the paper to imply that people who think otherwise are idiots for believing something that has been common scientific factual knowledge for nearly a century.

Peter Wiggin wrote:Interesting....thats not really what I said. As for Dogma....well he's smart. However his propensity to e-fight everyone about every post they put up is very very irritating. As for leaving an arguement...well I don't expect to change anyone's views when they are completely incapable of admitting that they may just be wrong in the face of someone with greater experience.

He's already said he doesn't care about credibility, and that no matter what evidence is provided he feels it is incorrect. Its ok, I like to say that people are wrong when they don't agree with me too! Everyone does.

However in this case he's trolling....in the most literal sense of the word. By obfuscating the actual point of his posts (what were they again?) he takes the focus off of the actual subject under discussion and turns it into yet another "Dogma point by point response to every question in a thread while supporting no stance in particular" that contributes NOTHING to the conversation in the thread.


Reminds me of kids on the play ground saying "Neyner neyner, I bet I'm smarter than you"....which is the standard MO for several posters on here. <yawn> get some new tricks....I'm not impressed.


I don't discount his opinion because he never brings up a valid point, I discount it because its pure idiocy to sit and argue that you know more about a subject and are more correct in your analysis than someone who has an education and years of professional experience. Please, by all means tell me how Dogma's relentless barrage of verbosity establishes ANY crediblity for his stance. Here's a tip, it doesn't.

Again, using feline research papers from 70 years ago is NOT a valid "factual basis" for modern medical or clinical information.

Well then we might as well ignore pasture's research then i mean that happened 150 years ago, the paper is entirely relevant to this discussion. Anyways you're both right, in your field emotional and physical effects of withdrawal are separated for ease of treatment and diagnostic. However all responses are derived from chemical interactions in the body, so in the end all responses are physical.

...Plus weed makes Warhammer way more awesomer.

Khornholio wrote:...Plus weed makes Warhammer way more awesomer.

So true.

Pete I think I know why we were disagreeing. Your coming at the question from a psychological background where as I am looking at it from a biological background. So in a way were both right about the whole withdrawal thing.

Im too lazy to took for it but Im pretty sure it was on CNN not too long ago where 3 guys tried to rob a dispensary and 2 of them were marines or something. I will agree that pot doesn't promote violence, but it does promote poor decisions.

For the record I believe in the total legalization or marijuana. I just think some of the pro-legalization people need to realize that it is a dangerous substance that needs to be treated with respect. Do that and you'll have a lot less problems, but that goes for every drug really. I also think the anti-legislation people need some better arguments because the ones they put forward are always slowed, gateway drug and such.

Anyway if I ever make it back out to Cali well have to roast one and play a game.

youbedead wrote:Anyways you're both right, in your field emotional and physical effects of withdrawal are separated for ease of treatment and diagnostic. However all responses are derived from chemical interactions in the body, so in the end all responses are physical.

This is exactly what I've been saying the entire time.

Yup.

Dogma pointed out that the line differentiating between "emotional" and "physical" isn't a real one. They're separate categories of withdrawal in addiction medicine, but that doesn't mean they're actually distinct things in real life. Insomnia, headaches, and irritability are physical symptoms, even if they don't fall into the "Physical Withdrawal" category for the purposes of addiction treatment.

The fact that emotions derive from physical processes has been documented for a long time in clinical research, as the paper Dogma cited showed. The use of the terms "physical" and "emotional" as categorical differences in the DSM is a use of the older (archaic) meanings of the words; as if emotions weren't physical. This makes the distinction easier and more intuitive for people who aren't aware of the physical basis of emotion, but is essentially inaccurate.

Peter misunderstood the point Dogma was making, and I'm not sure if he ever tried to understand it. Peter also tried to reference his training in the place of making an actual argument a couple of times.