Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

Obviously we don't get paid to post the most entertaining things to keep visitors coming back.  (I hope you weren't trying to imply that I was saying that?)  There are forums that encourage such things to keep hits high and ad revenue coming in.  I don't believe I need to point out these.  I'm sure you can come up with a few examples yourself.

Perhaps you should define "such things". Because yeah...otherwise it looks like that's what you're saying.

Again, you focused on the money to the "player" which was not my point.  The sites could encourage people to post absurd things, jokes, or other information in order to generate hits.  The users don't have to get paid for the site to make money.

[W]hy on Earth would YouTube ever block anything those people put up, if they're generating massive hits?

They wouldn't.  And I never said they would.  I simply said they could.

[Sheb]

Did you just try to trivialize rape?

I really feel like Virex got his own version of Reductio Ad Hitlerium in the form of Reduction Ad Rapist.

[GlyphGryph]

Legalizing alcohol dealt them a pretty severe freaking blow, though, and I can't imagine that legalizing pot wouldn't do the same.

Not so much LSD - there aren't really cartels that ship LSD in large quantities, and they don't make much money off it. It's not super popular, (in large part because it isn't addictive), so they don't push it. Most LSD is made right here in the US by a small number of committed individuals, which is why that one guy (can't remember the name) who stopped producing resulted in a like a threefold increase in price.

Anyway, while LSD may technically not be physically addictive, one still has to take psychological addiction into account, which is not something trivial.

It is pretty trivial when compared to some of the other things we allow that are psychologically addicting (gambling, facebook games, etc. and so on) and also optimized to part the poor from their money - something LSD has never been particularly good at because its extremely stupidly cheap to make in bulk, and its not even particularly good at getting people psychologically addicted.

So, hold up a sec. Why do you think LSD should be illegal to begin with?

[Andir]

Did you just try to trivialize rape?

I really feel like Virex got his own version of Reductio Ad Hitlerium in the form of Reduction Ad Rapist.

Neonivek may not have done it, but the study may have inadvertently done it while trying to bring up awareness.  IE: "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"  Neonivek was simply stating (if I interpreted correctly) that the parameters of the study may have been tweaked to try to "up sell" a problem.  It happens in all statistics (See: Gun crime.  If the person had a weapon on them [I believe it also includes a gun being in the car outside], even if concealed, never used, and never seen by the victim... it's a gun related crime.)

[Virex]

So, hold up a sec. Why do you think LSD should be illegal to begin with?

Are you an aspiring telepath? I never claimed I was for criminalization of LSD. I'm not convinced of either side of the argument and I'm just tossing some objections I have to the legalization side into the fray.

Did you just try to trivialize rape?

I really feel like Virex got his own version of Reductio Ad Hitlerium in the form of Reduction Ad Rapist.

Neonivek may not have done it, but the study may have inadvertently done it while trying to bring up awareness.  IE: "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"  Neonivek was simply stating (if I interpreted correctly) that the parameters of the study may have been tweaked to try to "up sell" a problem.  It happens in all statistics (See: Gun crime.  If the person had a weapon on them [I believe it also includes a gun being in the car outside], even if concealed, never used, and never seen by the victim... it's a gun related crime.)

That the statistics come out higher than what you're comfortable with doesn't mean the study has been tampered with though. In a mater as grave as this, I'd urge people to be careful with wild accusations like these.

[Criptfeind]

LSD is of course. Not. Physically at least.

That one.

LSD is not addictive.

Edit:

That the statistics come out higher than what you're comfortable with doesn't mean the study has been tampered with though. In a mater as grave as this, I'd urge people to be careful with wild accusations like these.

First thing. Most of that can simply be turned around the other way. Second thing. Saying that you believe that a study was skewed because it's result was 50% of women were raped is a wild accusation now?

[Virex]

Anything that can offer escape route is potentially addictive (including video games, social media and dancing to name a few), so technically, LSD is minimally addictive; There's no hypothetical substance that could give the same effect but be less addictive. Now since LSD does have a pretty powerful escape effect it is a little bit more addictive then snorting flour to name something, though not by virtue of it being addicted (are you still with me? )

[RedKing]

Obviously we don't get paid to post the most entertaining things to keep visitors coming back.  (I hope you weren't trying to imply that I was saying that?)  There are forums that encourage such things to keep hits high and ad revenue coming in.  I don't believe I need to point out these.  I'm sure you can come up with a few examples yourself.

Perhaps you should define "such things". Because yeah...otherwise it looks like that's what you're saying.

Again, you focused on the money to the "player" which was not my point.  The sites could encourage people to post absurd things, jokes, or other information in order to generate hits.  The users don't have to get paid for the site to make money.

Now that we've established what you're still trying to drag out as an analogy, let me point out that again this disproves the validity of the analogy. Sports players *do* get paid for their exploits, and those exploits in turn put money in the owners' pockets. There's a self-interest loop there that works against attempts to rid ANY professional team sport of doping.

Since you're so keen on clinging to the sports = internet forum analogy, let me put it this way: if Toady derived most of his income from site visits, and many of the site visits were to read what I posted, and in the process of trying to top myself I started posting inflammatory material that broke the forum guidelines...do you think I'd get a permaban? Because that would be killing the golden goose. (Granted, with Toady he still might do it because Tarn is awesome that way and not a money-grubbing CEO.)

Likewise, when Mark McGuire was hitting homeruns like they were prizes out of a Cracker Jack box and tens of thousands of people were buying St. Louis Cardinals merchandise as a result....do you think maybe the Cardinals' owners are going to have a vested interest in NOT investigating claims of steroid use and/or covering up evidence?

You're saying it's possible, I'm saying it's possible in the same way that it's possible that Kim Jong Il decides to step down peacefully and let everyone in North Korea have a pony. It's technically possible in that there are no laws of physics or man against it, but not bloody likely to happen.

[W]hy on Earth would YouTube ever block anything those people put up, if they're generating massive hits?

They wouldn't.  And I never said they would.  I simply said they could.

Face it, you used a poor analogy and now you're arguing yourself blue in the face rather than simply say, "Yeah, I could have picked a better analogy."

[Leafsnail]

(See: Gun crime.  If the person had a weapon on them [I believe it also includes a gun being in the car outside], even if concealed, never used, and never seen by the victim... it's a gun related crime.)

In, uh... what study?  Certainly most I've seen are "If the person was shot or threatened with a gun it was gun crime".

[Virex]

Saying that you believe that a study was skewed because it's result was 50% of women were raped is a wild accusation now?

Claiming that the researchers were willfully guiding their subjects to a certain conclusion is a pretty hefty allegation, as it essentially borders on fraud. It would be like claiming an astronomer added a few stars here and there to make the pictures prettier.

[GlyphGryph]

Are you an aspiring telepath? I never claimed I was for criminalization of LSD. I'm not convinced of either side of the argument and I'm just tossing some objections I have to the legalization side into the fray.

Well you were certainly arguing against legalization - I was wondering if you had any actual reason to be so, in light of what has been said. And the best reason for it being legalized is that in the absence of sufficient evidence for the benefits of banning something, legalization should be the default.

Being equivalent to other everyday addictives (do not that LSD doesn't actually simulate any pleasure centers directly, so is unlikely to be as psychologically addicting as many other every day things), the addiction argument is fairly superflous. If something is psychologically addictive (but only mildly so), and the only major side effect is 'having a good time', that's not really much of an argument against it at all.

Claiming that the researchers were willfully guiding their subjects to a certain conclusion is a pretty hefty allegation, as it essentially borders on fraud. It would be like claiming an astronomer added a few stars here and there to make the pictures prettier.

Its more commonly the fault of the news reporters rather than the researchers. And you do realize they add stuff to astronomy pictures to make them prettier, right?

[Virex]

They do in popular press. In official publications, it doesn't go beyond some contrast enhancement usually, and you're going to catch hell if you can't/won't produce the original images.

[Andir]

Now that we've established what you're still trying to drag out as an analogy...
Face it, you used a poor analogy and now you're arguing yourself blue in the face rather than simply say, "Yeah, I could have picked a better analogy."

There's really only one person that's dragging it out.  I simply stated it.  I put it in the dirt, you tied a rope to it and started dragging it around trying to prove some point.

(See: Gun crime.  If the person had a weapon on them [I believe it also includes a gun being in the car outside], even if concealed, never used, and never seen by the victim... it's a gun related crime.)

In, uh... what study?  Certainly most I've seen are "If the person was shot or threatened with a gun it was gun crime".

I've seen several studies that put a tick mark in the gun column even though one wasn't used.  Some even included the defender's gun.  I don't have the time (or TBH, desire) to look up the studies I've read on it right now.  If you really want to look it up, feel free.

[Nadaka]

False color astronomy isn't to make the pictures "prettier" it is to allow them to display data outside the visible spectrum or make less perceptible difference more apparent.

[Virex]

False color astronomy isn't to make the pictures "prettier" it is to allow them to display data outside the visible spectrum or make less perceptible difference more apparent.

Anything in the press has been photoshoped. I have no reason to assume this isn't true for astronomic pictures.

Are you an aspiring telepath? I never claimed I was for criminalization of LSD. I'm not convinced of either side of the argument and I'm just tossing some objections I have to the legalization side into the fray.

Well you were certainly arguing against legalization - I was wondering if you had any actual reason to be so, in light of what has been said. And the best reason for it being legalized is that in the absence of sufficient evidence for the benefits of banning something, legalization should be the default.

Being equivalent to other everyday addictives (do not that LSD doesn't actually simulate any pleasure centers directly, so is unlikely to be as psychologically addicting as many other every day things), the addiction argument is fairly superflous. If something is psychologically addictive (but only mildly so), and the only major side effect is 'having a good time', that's not really much of an argument against it at all

On one hand, you're probably right. On the other hand, it's still a drug. There's a reason I distrust tobacco, alcohol, coffee and candy...