jasory
@jasory@programming.dev
- Comment on If cannabis gets rescheduled to III, how can it ever get the state - federal differences resolved when it comes to the recreational market? 10 months ago:
You will be sorely missed with your worthless commentary… and your unwarranted arrogance… sorely missed the people weep the loss…
- Comment on If cannabis gets rescheduled to III, how can it ever get the state - federal differences resolved when it comes to the recreational market? 10 months ago:
You’ve had plenty of time to prove your claim that marijuana is an important medicine and anyone who disagrees must be citing Fox news, and yet all you have been able to do is act incredulous that there might be a more effective methodology for finding relevant research than a keyword search. The amount of relevant high-quality papers is not in the thousands, it’s not even in the hundreds. You arrived at your conclusion by the most useless and sophmoric methodology and are acting smug because you (supposedly) teach an introductory class to highschool graduates. Guess what dipshit? We don’t use your shitty lessons.
“Then we can talk”
You already admitted that you don’t understand pharmacology so what exactly do you think you’re going to talk about? How you still don’t understand how to perform graph traversal to find related studies?
- Comment on If cannabis gets rescheduled to III, how can it ever get the state - federal differences resolved when it comes to the recreational market? 10 months ago:
No there is not. There is a few hundred, and most of then don’t even cover efficacy in vivo which is the subject matter.
Keep LARPing as an academic, lets see how stupid you really are.
- Comment on If cannabis gets rescheduled to III, how can it ever get the state - federal differences resolved when it comes to the recreational market? 11 months ago:
Nope. It’s been 2-3 years, but I read every single research paper on the subject.
You’re confusing blog posts with actual academic papers. Just a heads up the the effects of medicines are no where near as clearcut as people think. Cannabiniods have fairly weak evidence for efficacy.
Imagine thinking that journalists have the capacity to analyze papers. Try getting a degree or atleast taking some classes on biostatistics.
- Comment on Would nuclear reactors be feasible everywhere? 11 months ago:
“super terrible accidents”
Yes. Super terrible accidents that result in fewer deaths than any other power source per kilowatt/hr. (Even factoring in generous increases in cancer rates).
- Comment on Would nuclear reactors be feasible everywhere? 11 months ago:
“Dealt with Chernobyl for years…”
You realise that all the estimated premature deaths are less than respiratory issues from air pollution. We could have a Chernobyl every year and it would be an improvement.
- Comment on If cannabis gets rescheduled to III, how can it ever get the state - federal differences resolved when it comes to the recreational market? 11 months ago:
“The justification”
They don’t legally need a justification. The reality is that drug tests just like felony checks are very good filters for bad employees. If a company actually needs employees they won’t do them, or lower the standards so low that anyone that isn’t actively injecting or murdering someone would pass.
- Comment on If cannabis gets rescheduled to III, how can it ever get the state - federal differences resolved when it comes to the recreational market? 11 months ago:
I think people need to actually research THC and cannabinoids. The handful of studies that have been done on them show that it’s no better than OTC medication in all but the very rarest cases.
Medical marijuana is a complete hoax, it was always about making money and getting high.
- Comment on Is the right to abortion a "negative right" or a "positive right"? 11 months ago:
“This is misunderstood as the unborn don’t have rights”
They have rights, the rights just don’t matter because a doctor decides so?
“Trumps professional medical opinions”
What do you think medical opinions are determining? Medically indicated abortions are relatively rare (and almost always permitted under restrictive laws), what other determinations do you think medical professionals are making?
What you are actually trying to do is categorise a persons desire for abortion as the same as medically necessary abortions to launder the credibility that the latter has. You try to get away with this based on the fact that one can find doctors that will do anything, even intentionally kill healthy adults. Reality check, here. Doctors like anyone else can engage in immoral behaviour, the mere fact that they do it does not make it moral.
I absolutely love that you couch all of this with “trust me I care, I’m a social worker”. You can care passionately about something and advocate for great harm.
I think you primarily feel misunderstood because you’re profoundly stupid.
- Comment on Is the right to abortion a "negative right" or a "positive right"? 11 months ago:
I don’t believe any state has a law that says that abortions must be provided to you. The legal right ammendments that activists are trying pass are simply to bar the state from restricting abortions.
- Comment on Is the right to abortion a "negative right" or a "positive right"? 11 months ago:
Abortion is not a religious issue. It is merely correlated with religious beliefs. Many religions have no position on abortion, and even the Bible holds no clear position on it, it’s presence in Christianity is a secular synthesis.
“If you think the soul…”
SCOTUS also reaffirmed in every single pro-choice case (e.g Roe v Wade Casey v. PlannedParenthood ) that the government has a right to regulate abortion in general just not in certain cases. At no point was it ever considered to be enforcing religious beliefs. This has never been considered a religious issue by any but the most retarded people.
- Comment on Is the right to abortion a "negative right" or a "positive right"? 11 months ago:
“At that point it’s indistinguishable from an embryo of a dolphin”
So we don’t know if embryos in humans are actually human?
The argument you are actually making is that it is visually indistinguishable from other embryos .
But this is meaningless, visual inspection is not the only allowed method for determining categorization. One wouldn’t look at a human in a realistic bear costume, and a bear and declare that they are the same thing. Or a stick-bug and a stick.
“It can’t even think yet”
There are numerous intervals of time were you don’t think, are you not worthy of protection? Can you be killed so long as neural synapses are severed faster than axons can fire? (Highly intense radiation can do this). Keep in mind that your argument completely falls apart once you consider that consciousness is a pattern of activity not a definite property.
- Comment on Is the right to abortion a "negative right" or a "positive right"? 11 months ago:
"There is nothing to protect or give rights to"
- We protect inanimate objects. Are you asserting that fetuses don’t even exist?
- There is nothing “scientific” or empirically derived about an application of moral valuation. This is simply you confusing yourself over word salad.
- “It’s only complicated because of different spiritual beliefs”- And yet the poster gave a non-spiritual reason. So why didn’t you show that it’s either not complicated or that the user is actually relying on spiritual beliefs?
“Clearly should have a right to her own body”
This is actually not clear at all. Consider self-harm, if people actually do have a right to their own body to do whatever they please then we have absolutely no right to take any measures to prevent self-harm; it is a violation of their rights. So if someone says “I want to cut my arm off”, you have no basis for saying “no you really shouldn’t” because it is “their body their choice”. The minute you say “Actually self-harm is irrational” means that it is not what the person wants that matters, but what a rational person would want. And then one could easily argue that a rational person wouldn’t want to engage in self-mutilation or killing a fetus. This is known in the literature as the “suicidal Bob problem” or the “argument of the idealised self”.
This and many other issues with defining bodily autonomy in such a way as to permit abortion is why it has largely been rejected in serious ethics; it’s only popular among the public because it’s essentially an elaborate appeal to emotion fallacy.
- Comment on Risks of CPR 11 months ago:
CCR is the primary method taught in cardiac care. E.g only compression. This is because the primary issue is preventing clots and making sure you get some blood flow to the tissues. Full oxygenation isn’t as important due to lower oxygen demand of an unconscious person.
- Comment on Risks of CPR 11 months ago:
External compression isn’t exactly the normal mechanism of blood circulation.
- Comment on Is it normal that I feel pretty bad for ignoring homeless people begging for money? 11 months ago:
Amoral means not morally relevant. Something that is morally neutral is not amoral, it’s morally neutral.
E.g it is morally neutral to pet a dog, it is amoral to like the colour blue.
Normally in moral philosophy one would avoid this confusion by classifying morally relevant actions/outcomes as “bad”,“neutral”, or “good”.
- Comment on Is it normal that I feel pretty bad for ignoring homeless people begging for money? 11 months ago:
Government programs are literally no better when it comes to administrative costs. In fact way worse in the vast majority of cases.
CEO’s are only a thing with very large charities on the order of the Red Cross, (or rich people money laundering charities). Your local shelter or food bank isn’t going to be having a high overhead, in fact it’s going to be much lower than the government agencies because of almost entirely free volunteer work. The point where the government is more efficient is due to the fact that welfare fraud is a crime, so people are naturally less inclined to lie to receive benefits.
- Comment on Is it normal that I feel pretty bad for ignoring homeless people begging for money? 11 months ago:
And none of this addresses whether or not giving money to panhandlers helps them.
I’ve lived on the street before, it sucks, but what the typical visibly homeless person does isn’t sustainable and doesn’t help them. It’s just a rut of wasteful and irrational behaviour, if you are panhandling you’re not engaging in productive behaviour that will result in long-term changes.
- Comment on What future AI applications are you most excited about? 11 months ago:
“AI applied to things like ‘against the computer’”
Coding an adversary in a game is generally very easy. If anything it’s oriented around making them beatable by humans rather than actually intelligent. (And that’s even ignoring lazy tricks like reading player moves).