[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]What a ****in cop out. You clearly said that with the intention of it being true,and then cop out when I ask you to back it up. COP OUT COP OUT COP OUT

AND YES THIS IS GOING TO CONTINUE UNTIL I GO TO SLEEP.[/QUOTE]

Oh no he called me a name!

You made a claim and I asked you to prove someone elses claim wrong and you couldn't. Calling me a name won't change the fact that you couldn't do it.

Slap him in the face and yell, "Damnit man! Get a hold of yourself!" Or, you know, just yell.

Nope...You can't just shout out positive claims and attribute burden of proof when someone challenges them. Not the way debates work my friend. But I do applaud your persistance...just admit you were wrong and I will go pass out.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]Nope...You can't just shout out positive claims and attribute burden of proof when someone challenges them. Not the way debates work my friend. But I do applaud your persistance...just admit you were wrong and I will go pass out.[/QUOTE]

Wrong about what? I didn't post a claim, you did.



Positive in what sense? Wouldn't it depend on which side of the debate I was on?

Ok...nevermind I see now that you have nothing real to say about anything and would rather meander in a parade of idiocy...I shall now move along.

But yes, you did post a claim...just because you phrased it into a cryptic question doesn't mean you have no burden of proof...

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]Ok...nevermind I see now that you have nothing real to say about anything and would rather meander in a parade of idiocy...I shall now move along.[/QUOTE]

You say pot doesn't hurt you.

I say there are people who say otherwise, care to prove them wrong.

You say you don't have to, I have to.

You call names when I ask you to prove your point.

You still won't prove your point.

I pull on your strings a little, you get pissed.

You move on.


.... Yeah I can see pot has been good to you!

1.) You use a ROfL smily in every post...throw away the crutch...it isn't helping your case.

2.) I said I could neither offer proof for, nor against pot damaging your brain.

3.) Your mother is upstairs with another man as we speak.

Seriously though man, You can't say something like "video games kill innocent goats" and expect the other person to immediatly offer proof to the contrary...THAT IS NOT HOW DEBATES WORK...YOU make a positive claim, YOU give the ****in proof. Mock me or not, you are ****in wrong.

I actually agree with you about the effects of pot but you still haven't proven it. When anyone spews out statements like "pot doesn't hurt you" then I have to ask then "Why? Others say different."

Maybe you shouldn't make those statements if you can't back them up.

Oh no he made fun of mother! Bring out the shot gun pa!

OR MAYBE YOU'VE BEEN IGNORING THE FACT THAT I DON'T ****ING KNOW, AND HAVE SAID THIS OPENLY, YOU NAIVE LITTLE ****.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]OR MAYBE YOU'VE BEEN IGNORING THE FACT THAT I DON'T ****ING KNOW, AND HAVE SAID THIS OPENLY, YOU NAIVE LITTLE ****.[/QUOTE]

Now why would I ignore that? Not to get you wound up for sure.

Dance Puppet Dance!

I had sex so hard with your whole family. Beat that.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]I had sex so hard with your whole family. Beat that.[/QUOTE]

Yeah and your mom goes to college. Nener nener!

Yeah??

Well your mom is dead.



OWNED...AND PLUS ONE FOR THE TABOO JOKE. PLUS TWO IF MORE THEN TEN PEOPLE FLAME ME SIMULTANEOSLY.

Raoul, go take your medication.

Mauhahaha...perfect time for the resident psychopath to join the fun!!! Could it get any crazier? I think not.

I'd rather be a psychopath than have that temper of yours.. my god.

Yeah yeah, shouldn't you be out raping women or something?

Who says different?

New neural tissue develops all the time; adult neurogenesis isn't a new theory, it's been known for a while now.

It isn't the neurons themselves deviding, but stem cells. In this case, in the hippocampus, the neurons are coming from the subgranular zone (SGZ). Just do a quick google on "SGZ stem cells" and you'll be provided with more info than you'd need.

Now, as for the article: NEW NEURONS ARE NOT ALWAYS A GOOD THING! For example, there is a veritable plethora of new neurons in the hippocampus created by epilepsy. As you can see, new neurons =! good. Aging also causes cells to be replaced but we don't know WHAT THE NEW NEURONS ARE DOING. The brain is a complex meshwork of connections; new cells just springing up can be either good or bad we don't know. In summary, this article is incredible bull****. (The Globe/mail one. I only have access to the abstract from the paper, so I can really do anything with that. The paper does make some... interesting claims... in the abstract [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16224541&query_hl=1 that I don't know how they went about proving. Also keep in mind many published papers are *crap*.) By the way, this sentence: "Chronic use of marijuana may actually improve learning memory when the new neurons in the hippocampus can mature in two or three months," is completely baseless.

Found it: http://www.jci.org/cgi/reprint/JCI25509v1

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]Let's go even more basic ****... Im drunk and dont understand your fancy talk...My claim is that nothing does **** to ****. Care you retort on this ****? Of course you ****in dont..;.[/QUOTE]

Fine! I'll ****ing retort it, and i've not even been a part of this conversation.

Marijuana have negitive affects on the brain!

And further down on the same page more evidence of that

Now maybe you'll listen.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]New neural tissue develops all the time; adult neurogenesis isn't a new theory, it's been known for a while now.

It isn't the neurons themselves deviding, but stem cells. In this case, in the hippocampus, the neurons are coming from the subgranular zone (SGZ). Just do a quick google on "SGZ stem cells" and you'll be provided with more info than you'd need.

Now, as for the article: NEW NEURONS ARE NOT ALWAYS A GOOD THING! For example, there is a veritable plethora of new neurons in the hippocampus created by epilepsy. As you can see, new neurons =! good. Aging also causes cells to be replaced but we don't know WHAT THE NEW NEURONS ARE DOING. The brain is a complex meshwork of connections; new cells just springing up can be either good or bad we don't know. In summary, this article is incredible bull****. (The Globe/mail one. I only have access to the abstract from the paper, so I can really do anything with that. The paper does make some... interesting claims... in the abstract [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16224541&query_hl=1 that I don't know how they went about proving. Also keep in mind many published papers are *crap*.) By the way, this sentence: "Chronic use of marijuana may actually improve learning memory when the new neurons in the hippocampus can mature in two or three months," is completely baseless.

Found it: http://www.jci.org/cgi/reprint/JCI25509v1[/QUOTE]

I had an impressive erection whilst reading this. Good work!

BTW: that article was co-written by one of my profs! Belgians ROOL foreigners DROOL! Go home foreigners! Stop stealing our jobs!

Pffft. Belgians. They're so damn evil.

Plus...they share a border...with the Dutch!

As for this thread: marijuana harms you in the same way that tobacco harms you in the same way that inhaling smoke harms you.

And Raoul's argument quality seems to be inversely proportional to his intake of substances.

Better article than the stupid globe and mail one: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051010/full/051010-12.html

They seem to be focusing on the antidepressant effects. Keep in mind, the correlation in the paper itself was not made to THC (which is in good old mary jane) but to another, stronger chemical. Also, the doses were chronic (heh, chronic...) and high (ooh, two in a row!) with this high affinity chemical. In other words, the amount one can usually get their hands on *may be* insufficent to produce these effects. Even all those special types.

As far as neurogenesis, it's a big ol' hotbed of research. Papers do correlate some types of neurogenesis to benefits, but then again that is *certain types* and *correlations*. Briefly, when I say types, I mean that neurogenesis can be stimulated by different actions that casuse different types of growth (and by growth, I mean how they branch and where these branches come from. Do a search on "hilar basal dendrite" for an abnormal type of growth). These range from the chemical pilocarpine that generates epileptic neurons to genetically modified mice with overexpressed neural growth factor that correlates to incresed aquisition of new information.(See: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046%2Fj.1460-9568.2002.02042.x?cookieSet=1 )

Ugh, this post isn't looking so hot, but this is interesting stuff.

MFalse just pwnd this entire thread.

mmmmm... pot.

i would say that pot is less harmful than cigs because it's untreated and most pot smokers don't smoke 20 doobs a day. but that's just me.

mmmmm... cigs. (i started smoking again. blech... after 3 years of no cigs)

btw, i'm not going to post anything against what mfalse posted but it's a well known fact that each government posts medical and scientific studies skewed to their stance on such matters. for instance, republicans, although they can't connect breast cancer with abortions will mention breast cancer in literature on abortion just to make the subliminal link. (don't ask for a link, i'm just telling you it happens)

[QUOTE=Darth Evad]but that's just me.[/quote]

Actually, marijuana has a higher concentration of carcinogens than cigarettes, so, it pretty much evens out.



All you Canadians think alike.

:em321:

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]MFalse just pwnd this entire thread.[/QUOTE]

Well, I pawnd your mom last night?

thanks for the fix wolfy.

Let me (more kindly than Raoul) explain burden of proof.

Negative claims are impossible to prove, regardless whether they are true or not. The only way to disprove them is with a contrary positive proof. If I say the sky is green, you can't simply disprove that in itself. You'd have to provide proof that the sky is a different color. That one's easy.

Anytime someone is expected to prove a "not" or some form of inaction, it's a negative claim. Like in court, you can't (usually) prove yourself innocent. That's why it's the job of the prosecutor to prove your guilt. How can you prove you didn't do something? You can't. But you can prove you did other things (positive claims) that are contrary to the prosecution's claims (such as proof of being somewhere else at a time of a crime).

In short, only positive claims are capable of carrying concrete proof, and they in turn determine the validity of negative claims.

Apply that to any debate.


...Class dismissed.

>.>

Oh yeah man. Like not even in the cool way, just plain evil. I think we sold P-90's (special type of gun) to Nepal. Seriously. We're not well people.

I distantiate myself from any type of government or arbitrary border. I live in Tenshu-land, both physically and mentally. And you're all invited (we have beer!)

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]New neural tissue develops all the time; adult neurogenesis isn't a new theory, it's been known for a while now.

It isn't the neurons themselves deviding, but stem cells. In this case, in the hippocampus, the neurons are coming from the subgranular zone (SGZ). Just do a quick google on "SGZ stem cells" and you'll be provided with more info than you'd need.[/QUOTE]

I was under the impression that neurogenesis that forms new tissue was the support and connective tissue, not the neurons themselves, or at least, rarely the neurons themselves. I was lead to believe the neural stem cells tend to form oligodendrocytes, Schwann cells, or astrocytes. This is news to me. Interesting.

Is Tenshu-land north or south of Brussels?

Can't we all just be friends?

Agreed

course pot hurts you, every damn time i smoke ****loads i get a sore throat.

I really should get my girlfriend to read half your posts here and blast them all to ****. She's practically a doctor. She probably knows more about the human body than all of you combined, this I know for a fact, considering she actually went to school fully for years for it.

She has medical dictionaries out the *** at home, and both the dictionaries and herself can tell you smoking pot is NOT bad for you, at least not as bad as cigarette's and alcohol.

If pot did all these horrible things, society wouldn't exist as it is today. Jamaica would be in ruin, guyana as well. All the rock and rap superstars wouldn't be able to compose music, lawyers and doctors who do it wouldn't be able to practice (and trust me, there are doctors that smoke weed, I've smoked it with them), and considering the simple fact that it's been used over 15, 000 years and there hasn't been ONE single death from it, should show any person that hasn't been filled with propagandized crap that it's not as bad as people make it out to be.


I stand by my argument before, which all potheads will agree to, you can read and read and read all you want on pot and "learn" all about it and what it's supposed to do and not do, but you really don't know **** about it until you've done it yourself.

yeah but doctors kill people!

You can't be completely absolute that it's "NOT" bad for you, because it does have minor progressive detriment to your lungs. It's just not bad in the way that popular opinion/belief makes it out to be.

Sorry, I don't have to smash my face into bricks to know it's bad for me.

Jamaica IS in ruin. :p



What? I've heard/read about lots of deaths resulting from marijuana use.



Why?