LexLuthor
- 2,972
- 263
He meant the word he was using, he was just wrong about it--and then chose to backtrack and try to bullshit the meaning of the word.
If you don't like reading tasteless commentary, don't read past this sentence.
One of my favorite adages of the digital age is this:
"Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics. Even if you win, you are still a retard!"
outwest
apparently I'm not smart enough to word an idea in such a way that it's not misread, unread, or taken out of context. I hate repeating and rephrasing my words. I think I'll take some getting hit on the head lessons now.
Just for the record dude--you were making some great points, and I actually enjoyed the discussion with you. I just categorically disagree with you viewpoint, that's all.
It's not about winning or losing, it's about coming to understanding. You're never going to believe I'm all the way right, and I'm never going to believe you are all the way right. The truth, and both of us also know this--is that neither of us can really say something about any of this with any kind of authority. That's the point, I think it's worth coming at it from a different angle. The only thing which riles me up slightly is that anyone would flat out attack a perfectly reasonable and non-invasive plan to maybe get some interesting results.
People for some reason take offense to my appeal to reason which states that we're sort of doing the wrong things if we want to be exacting. We are getting a good general picture, yes--and I never did say we weren't. What I am saying is there's no reason to believe that it's not possible for us to further clarify some things if we're smart about it.
It bothers me that an obviously positive idea like that would be met with such fervent nay-saying. I'm happy to take constructive criticisms, or to even be proven wrong entirely if someone feels up to it--but it doesn't jive with me that I should keep my mouth shut about things I think when people get to jibberjabbin' back and forth talkin about how this grams per watt here and that grams per watt there and how shit has been scientifically proven or "tested"--when in realty, the both of us know that's not the case.
As I've said--not everything worthwhile comes out of science, but when you do science almost universally something useful will eventually come out of it (if you look in the right places). Trying to make a point against that is like trying to make a point against the possibility of the history of mankind. We owe most if not all of our history to this idea of testing new things, probing new depths, and asking unpopular questions.
Face it--without dickheads like me (or rather super geniuses who are as stubborn as I am) the world would be nothing like it is. We'd still be taming the fucking west if we let nay-sayers and know-it-alls run the world.
Things only get better if you try to make them better. How the hell would anyone know what's possible unless they've tried. I don't plan on letting this issue die--I will make something of this plan, because it's one I believe in.
I'm not just sitting here talking out of my ass and disagreeing with you to spite you. I'm disagreeing with you because I do disagree with you.
What you'll find with me is that I will find a hole irregardless of the wording of your argument--because what I'm attacking is not the wording insomuch as I'm attacking the substance of your arguments. Yes, I go after primarily the wording--but this is only possible if your wording does not justify your claim. If what you meant was clear, and you were right about it I wouldn't be a huge asshole and play semantics with you. If your claim was solid--no amount of discourse from me would be able to dismantle it, I'd only end up looking the fool for trying to attack your words rather than your meaning--I'd argue that's precisely the opposite of what I've done. I've attacked your meaning through your words. They don't match up because what you're saying doesn't make sense.
It was the same problem with the dude I ignored and the word maximize. He wanted to play semantics with that word--but ultimately it was his reasoning which was incorrect not his choice of words or the definition I was going by. It's clear what he meant, and that he was overstepping his ability as a human to claim omnipotent knowledge about a plant and any future discoveries which might stem from doing science with it.
Excepting a few things, many of your arguments were flimsily supported--but a few of your points were well received, a reason why I enjoyed the discourse with you--I perhaps learned a few things and certainly thought in new ways about things. However, much of the main substance of your argument which was well supported was not in direct opposition to my claim. While true, things like this aren't relevant. The question still remains--how perfect is your knowledge of the plant? So perfect to rule out the possibility of any benefit to be gained by science? Answering this question yes is the only way to win the central argument here--and that's why it's such a kerfuffle, you know you can't answer this way--but you also want to wriggle a win out somehow.
The problem you're facing is that it's impossible to make a perfectly sound argument against something like that. You're actually a damn good debater, if I do say so--because you managed to actually make a solid attempt at doing this. However, when something just isn't so--and the substance isn't there to back your claim--you'll find it's impossible to win a debate against an informed foe irrespective of the wording you choose.
There are no words to refute the possibility of a benefit gained by doing some science. This has long been the strength of science. In a way it is one of the few things which is its own justification. The only socially acceptable way to refute such a claim is with science--because this is the only standardized fashion in which we can make arguments which are considered "irrefutable". No matter what you say about the world, everyone isn't going to be convinced until two people agree on something: the preacher and the scientist.
When those two agree, shit gets down. Otherwise, there's always someone left out--someone waiting for an answer that they believe. Because of this, I'm well within the realm of sanity to claim that until you do some science, you won't know if it can or can't help. Like I said earlier, it's kinduv a dick move--but that's one of the perks of being a scientist. I can always ask a question that no one has answered yet. It's how we get money--we convince people that the answers they find might surprise them, and we do that by surprising them over and over and over again with what we find. Science has an excellent track record in this respect.
Science is, as much as any other methodology, a system to study the world which is not perfect. This is why science isn't the only way--but it is a different way, and it's a way to do things in a standardized way that has given our species nearly all of it's greatest abilities. Single-handedly, this one simple standard process has changed the face of the globe.
What you've found is a person who isn't looking for a well worded argument, but rather a well centered and substantive one. Some of the least learned people in my life have put me in my place in arguments more often than I care to count--this is likely due to their perspective being better at viewing certain issues. It's the same argument I'm having here.
For you to "win" the argument, you'd essentially have to prove that there is no reason to look at any cannabis research through a scientific lens and perspective. It has nothing to do with the words broseph. I get what you're saying--a lot of it is right--but the central claim is at worst wrong, and at best something you can't prove right now. Whereas I have hundreds of years of results and millions of examples to suggest that doing science might turn up some surprises.
Squiggly,
How do you find the time to write your posts?
Sincerely,
Cap
Squiggly,
How do you find the time to write your posts?
Sincerely,
Cap
And with such immaculate grammar!
outwest
I type incredibly quickly and I have the gift of gab--the words just pour out, man.
It's a blessing and a curse.
Mom was a grammar Nazi, her mom was too (she was an English teacher). Just kinda rubbed off.
When I speak it's actually pretty ebonic-ish if I'm near my hometown friends :) Gotta turn that shit off when I go to school tho.
Squiggly,
How do you find the time to write your posts?
Sincerely,
Cap
Agreed on all counts ttystikk.
One of my favorite things about myself is that I feel I do a good job of realizing what my weaknesses are. When it comes to conversation and debate one of my biggest problems is that my brain is overactive, before I ever say or type something I tend to come at whatever point it is I'm trying to make from several perspectives. My brain is always always doing this, and as much as that can be a strength--sometimes when you can't slow your brain down about what it is you want to say, you end up letting something important that's been said to you fall through the cracks.
I also tend to circle issues and never get to a goddamn point for a million years, this is another representation of my knack and habit of thinking about things from multiple perspectives. The truth is that for the most part, I know full well when I'm going to piss someone off--and to what degree. I'm fairly good at reading people, identifying their intentions, etc--this works a bazillion times better in person, but I've found I'm pretty fuckin' good at it on the internet as well in certain situations.
Usually when what I'm saying is pissing someone off, it's because I think they're an idiot--and it was my intention to say something intelligent that would push their buttons and make them make a big foolish scene about it.
In short, I'm a prick.
I know and accept those things, and I do my best to combat them down to appreciable levels for everyone--this is something which is actually much easier on the internet than in person. I have something akin to mild Aspergers (hasn't ever really been nailed down--I'm a social bee and get along with everyone, but the way I go about things and the way I take in and store information is markedly different from most people) and so I come across strangely at times in person--people often think I'm not listening to them when I couldn't be more captivated by what they're saying, shit like that.
The reason I always have something to say is that I have a near photographic memory, and even beyond that patterns and things like that jump out at me big time without my having to really ever look for them.
I realize I can come across as a pompous asshole at times, but I really believe that this is actually a case of everyone having become intellectually lazy in the world today. Debate like this would've been commonplace not even a century ago. These days people just wanna rest on their laurels and never work out the old brain muscle. I can't do that, I have a compulsion to spit the things out which my brain is whirling around.
The best way I can describe how I feel about it is this:
I feel like everyone needs to put their fucking man pants on and learn how to have a goddamn debate--not I need to calm down and quit trying to be so smart all the damn time. Another way to say that is, "I prefer to be stupid and don't like when you get all smarty pants with me."
I'd be a dick if I thought I was smarter than the rest of you, but I don't think that--I think that a huge amount of you are lazy as fuck intellectually, but not for lack of aptitude for complex thinking. Doing this kind of stuff, and doing it well, takes a good amount of introspection
--and I think that's the main problem. People are afraid of what they'll see in the mirror if they really ask themselves if they're living up to their full potential, or even if they're making a respectable go of it. Did you care about making a good argument? About your argument at all?
Or are you just bullshitting on the internet?
Everyone wants to win a debate, but no one wants to put the necessary work in--to understand what a solid argument is, how to make one, or even to research the topic they're speaking about carefully. They just wanna make random fuckin' statements with flimsy, mostly opinion based, support.
It's a farse and it's what's sinking our country. Either way, Aristotle is fucking getting jiggy with it in his grave, that's for sure.
in a way you guys are both right so lets keep it peaceful in here. main reason why i joined another community..that and avg yields LoL
Personally, I enjoy speaking from experience. I consider myself a fairly good debater, but there are many debates not worth engaging in. Debating just for the sake of it is a waste of time in my opinion, no matter how fast you can type or think.
Squiggly, saying you are a prick and moments later saying you get along with everybody is contradictory. Only pricks like to associate with pricks. Perhaps you are being too hard on yourself, or people are just pretending to get along with you... Either way I enjoy your banter, and you do make some good points in between said banter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?