Thread: Legalizing Mary-Jane Yes or No?

my point with mentioning that the culture itself is biased is entirely valid. while the culture is certainly looking to ensure they're doing something safe, the group is most likely to be have a confirmational bias in anything they find, looking for the studies, or just making shit up, for things that enhance cannabis in the eyes of the masses and downplay the dangers of the pasttime. this isn't to say that they're always wrong, but it's important, as an intellectual, to understand where a source stands and where the inclination is to bend an argument. there is always a bias, especially in printed media, and that specific group is more likely to be guilty of bias than, say, the DSM.

also i'm a little surprised at your bravado at saying syme isn't critical in thought, or that he doesn't challenge ideas. i understand that you're new, but he's earned a reputation for having well-thought out arguments, an efficient means of conveying his opinions and a sharp eye for bs with the ability to succunctly describe it. there is a subtle distinction in your argument that i think you missed - weighing the validity of an idea is a form of challenging it (although challenging is an aggressive word, and weighing opinions is not an aggressive thing to do), but methods of challenging ideas don't necessarily adhere to thoughtful consideration and weighing of the respective merits of competing thoughts. all rhinos are animals, but not all animals are rhinos etc. etc. etc.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

my point with mentioning that the culture itself is biased is entirely valid. while the culture is certainly looking to ensure they're doing something safe, the group is most likely to be have a confirmational bias in anything they find, looking for the studies, or just making shit up, for things that enhance cannabis in the eyes of the masses and downplay the dangers of the pasttime. this isn't to say that they're always wrong, but it's important, as an intellectual, to understand where a source stands and where the inclination is to bend an argument. there is always a bias, especially in printed media, and that specific group is more likely to be guilty of bias than, say, the DSM.

also i'm a little surprised at your bravado at saying syme isn't critical in thought, or that he doesn't challenge ideas. i understand that you're new, but he's earned a reputation for having well-thought out arguments, an efficient means of conveying his opinions and a sharp eye for bs with the ability to succunctly describe it. there is a subtle distinction in your argument that i think you missed - weighing the validity of an idea is a form of challenging it (although challenging is an aggressive word, and weighing opinions is not an aggressive thing to do), but methods of challenging ideas don't necessarily adhere to thoughtful consideration and weighing of the respective merits of competing thoughts. all rhinos are animals, but not all animals are rhinos etc. etc. etc.

I never said it wasn't valid, I was actually completely agreeing. But at the same time I was bringing up the idea that it might not be so bad to listen to the biased group sometimes. It's like you said, we're all looking towards the health aspect constantly, and finding new things about cannabis all the time. You say that because of the biased we make things up, well I can assure you the non biased group makes up rumors and myths all the time. I mean look at the anti pot commercials, almost all of them are invalid in reason yet people believe them. There are also ways around the biased as well such as double blind study and other ways to get rid of the experimenter or good subject effect.



As for calling syme uncritical in thought, I was simply stating that he was trying to say I was uncritical in thought while accusing me of doing the exact same thing in a different manner. I never meant to portray that anybody on here is uncritical in thought, if that's how it was perceived then I'm sorry.

Edit: after all it's a debate, you can accept your opponents arguments or ignore them. There's no reason for personal insult.

Originally Posted by TwoStoopid

I never said it wasn't valid, I was actually completely agreeing. But at the same time I was bringing up the idea that it might not be so bad to listen to the biased group sometimes. It's like you said, we're all looking towards the health aspect constantly, and finding new things about cannabis all the time. You say that because of the biased we make things up, well I can assure you the non biased group makes up rumors and myths all the time. I mean look at the anti pot commercials, almost all of them are invalid in reason yet people believe them. There are also ways around the biased as well such as double blind study and other ways to get rid of the experimenter or good subject effect.

I don 't think you understand what bias is. Bias is the tendency to skew information to come up with a certain favourable results while downplaying, ignoring or omitting sometimes crucial information to the contrary. You can be biased for marijuana (Cannabis Culture) or biased against (anti-drug folk). A completely unbiased source would neutrally give out information on the topic as it is, without coming to conclusions based on their own preferences. Because of this, even if a biased group has a great point to make, they've already done the damage to themselves because skeptics cannot take them seriously as a source, and the only people who believe them will end up being those who would believe anything they say in the first place.

Originally Posted by TwoStoopid

As for calling syme uncritical in thought, I was simply stating that he was trying to say I was uncritical in thought while accusing me of doing the exact same thing in a different manner. I never meant to portray that anybody on here is uncritical in thought, if that's how it was perceived then I'm sorry.

Edit: after all it's a debate, you can accept your opponents arguments or ignore them. There's no reason for personal insult.

He did say you were being uncritical in thought because you were. You chose to reference heavily biased sources and say they were some of the more valid places to get information and at the same time denounce a completely unbiased source with a reputation for being a medical encyclopedia. That's being uncritical in thought for the source you like (you're own bias - honestly, nothing wrong with that, but it's like building a house on sand when you argue like that), and being overly critical of a solid, reputable source. I should point out that it wasn't simply a personal insult, it was an admittedly abrasive way of saying what I've just said now. If he called you stupid and never proved it, that's a personal attack, otherwise, he's making a point and it's entirely up to Syme to determine how he wants to do that. Don't be afraid to call people foolish for making certain arguments, just make sure that you're correct in doing so.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

I don 't think you understand what bias is. Bias is the tendency to skew information to come up with a certain favourable results while downplaying, ignoring or omitting sometimes crucial information to the contrary. You can be biased for marijuana (Cannabis Culture) or biased against (anti-drug folk). A completely unbiased source would neutrally give out information on the topic as it is, without coming to conclusions based on their own preferences. Because of this, even if a biased group has a great point to make, they've already done the damage to themselves because skeptics cannot take them seriously as a source, and the only people who believe them will end up being those who would believe anything they say in the first place.

Right, but as I said, you can get around the effects of being biased when conducting experiments and/or correlation studies. Such as a double blind study (which I referred to earlier), where the experimenter is "blind" from parts of the experiment that can be altered by a bias. As for being bias for or against marijuana, I believe there is nobody that is truly unbiased towards the subject.

Originally Posted by TwoStoopid

As for being bias for or against marijuana, I believe there is nobody that is truly unbiased towards the subject.

If you mean this in the same way as you might say nobody is truly unbiased towards any subject, then sure. If you mean that the subject of marijuana legalisation is somehow rare or even unique in terms of its propensity to bias people, then I will have to disagree. I'm not biased in the marijuana debate in any meaningful way, I assure you, and I see no reason to regard it that way over other debated issues.

Originally Posted by gwahir

If you mean this in the same way as you might say nobody is truly unbiased towards any subject, then sure. If you mean that the subject of marijuana legalisation is somehow rare or even unique in terms of its propensity to bias people, then I will have to disagree. I'm not biased in the marijuana debate in any meaningful way, I assure you, and I see no reason to regard it that way over other debated issues.

You mean to tell me that you would feel no emotion if marijuana was legalized?

Originally Posted by TwoStoopid

You mean to tell me that you would feel no emotion if marijuana was legalized?

How is that the same as being unbiased? Unbiased doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion.

I'm unbiased in the sense of having nothing to gain either way. There's no way for the issue to play to my personal preferences because, regarding marijuana, I have none. What I have is some knowledge of the issue, from which I have formed an opinion of whether it should be legalised. That's not the same as bias.