Curse

Short · Oct 10, 2009, 06:32 PM // 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~ Dan ~

Go for it, let's see what you've got.

I thought you wouldn't see the point of that post.

AtomicMew · Oct 10, 2009, 06:59 PM // 18:59

Wow, some people in this thread fail to anti-drug propoganda pretty hard.

Do a little independent thought and stop being mind-blowingly hypocritical.

Crimso · Oct 10, 2009, 07:01 PM // 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

I'm tired of your assumptions. Prove it. Prove it that there were no people who did drugs occasionally and had no health problems because of it.

I don't know if you're intentionally misunderstanding or...
I asked why do you think that the second they use a drug they become addicted to it.

Cocaine is supposedly addictive from the first use though. Also no I'm not going to prove it, why don't you prove that the drugs are not addictive if they're used occasionaly?

Short · Oct 10, 2009, 07:04 PM // 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimso

Cocaine is supposedly addictive from the first use though. Also no I'm not going to prove it, why don't you prove that the drugs are not addictive if they're used occasionaly?

Prove it? I know people who use drugs every week/2 weeks incl. cocaine sometimes and aren't addicted. Ofc, you don't know I'm telling truth.

AtomicMew · Oct 10, 2009, 07:04 PM // 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimso

Cocaine is supposedly addictive from the first use though. Also no I'm not going to prove it, why don't you prove that the drugs are not addictive if they're used occasionaly?

You are the one making the assertion and judgement calls. It is up to you to make your point, not the other way around.

BlackSephir · Oct 10, 2009, 07:12 PM // 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimso

Also no I'm not going to prove it, why don't you prove that the drugs are not addictive if they're used occasionaly?

That "argument" became sad and pathetic when theists used it when they wanted others to prove non-existence of their gods. You don't prove that something doesn't exist, you prove that it does, if you can. Same goes for drugs. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

wilderness · Oct 10, 2009, 07:16 PM // 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

That "argument" became sad and pathetic when theists used it when they wanted others to prove non-existence of their gods. You don't prove that something doesn't exist, you prove that it does, if you can. Same goes for drugs. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

I'm living proof. I experimented in my teenage life and gave it up after a short time as I grew bored. I've no desire to ever do them again, and I haven't for many years.

I also know more people who've ruined their health with legal drugs than illegal.

stanzhao · Oct 10, 2009, 07:27 PM // 19:27

i am lolling hard at this thread and the ignorance of some people. doing drugs doesnt mean your a thief, or scum, or whatever. Tory MP David Cameron admitted to smoking weed while in university click , and he is now running for prime minister, cocaine was found in the EU parliament, click .

drugs are not just something that is found by lower society, its everywhere. its not always addictive. people can see that they have changed, and they now have a large amount of power, because they are smart and intelligent people.

you cant just dismiss everyone who has done drugs because you think your better than them. i dont give a damn if you think responsibly, if i dont drink at all, that doesnt give me the right to tell you your scum. the real world doesnt work like that... maybe it does in your little neighbourhood where your mum makes sure you in bed by 7 and brings you up some warm milk and tells you your special... and if that is the case i feel sorry for you

Crimso · Oct 10, 2009, 07:31 PM // 19:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

That "argument" became sad and pathetic when theists used it when they wanted others to prove non-existence of their gods. You don't prove that something doesn't exist, you prove that it does, if you can. Same goes for drugs. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

No you do not. In science and psychology at least in order to find that something exists you have to try every method to disprove it and if not one can disprove it, then it exists. The burden lies within those who want to disprove a theory not those who suggest it(for example most of the Psychoanalytical approach to psychology).

If you had to prove it did exist any one experiment could be criticised until people believe it didn't exist even if the experiment was actually right in the first place.

Zahr Dalsk · Oct 10, 2009, 07:39 PM // 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimso

No you do not. In science and psychology at least in order to find that something exists you have to try every method to disprove it and if not one can disprove it, then it exists. The burden lies within those who want to disprove a theory not those who suggest it(for example most of the Psychoanalytical approach to psychology).

Onus Probandi, bro.

It's on you to prove your wild claims, not on us to disprove them.

AtomicMew · Oct 10, 2009, 07:51 PM // 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimso

No you do not. In science and psychology at least in order to find that something exists you have to try every method to disprove it and if not one can disprove it, then it exists. The burden lies within those who want to disprove a theory not those who suggest it(for example most of the Psychoanalytical approach to psychology).

If you had to prove it did exist any one experiment could be criticised until people believe it didn't exist even if the experiment was actually right in the first place.

Wow, what a complete fail misinterpretation of scientific method.

Unicorns and fairies exist and do the mambo line around your bed while you sleep. Prove they don't exist.

Yeah that's brilliant, dude.

Crimso · Oct 10, 2009, 07:52 PM // 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Onus Probandi, bro.

It's on you to prove your wild claims, not on us to disprove them.

Thats where the problem would lie, how would I prove the claim indefinitely?. Say I did actually carry out an study and somehow had lets say 1000 volunteers take cocaine once, then check on them a year later. Say I found all of them were addicted, my study would be considered a success.

Until criticisms come in, "your study didn't use enough people, thus is not representative of the population", "people dropped out of your experiment, therefore your results could be bias", "How do you know these people didn't take Cocaine before?","Your participants where mostly X, it's not representative of everywhere","Your participants may have been given more Cocaine than 1st time users". I'd end up with a study done but nothing gained and it would be impossible to do additional studies to refute all of the criticisms.

Neo Nugget · Oct 10, 2009, 08:10 PM // 20:10

I think this thread has run its course. If anybody has a problem with me closing this you can go ahead and PM me. But for now....

Closed.