The smoking and Drinking Obsession [Archive]

Warabit

July 10th, 2006, 08:31 PM

Haro!

July 10th, 2006, 08:35 PM

I have never smoked and don't plan on it. While I have drank alcohol it was never excessive, like some of my friends used to do in HS. I don't mind being around people who drink and/or smoke alot as long as I'm cool with them. If I'm not that cool with them, I don't feel comfortable in that sort of environment.

Reinas

July 10th, 2006, 08:50 PM

I don't smoke and I never will. I do drink when I'm out for dinner or out for the night. I dislike excessive drinking because contrary to popular belief, drunk people actually know what they're doing - but I don't think too much alcohol is the way to "have fun". I don't mind people who smoke, as long as they don't go out of their way to blow smoke into my face or make me miserable.

Reidar

July 10th, 2006, 08:52 PM

I'm 19 and have never had a drink nor a smoke, and I never intend to. The human body is already weak enough without substances like those.

Animematt55

July 10th, 2006, 08:53 PM

i dotn smoke..i think it is disgusting.
I had the same problem Wara, but now i am over 21. and if i am hanign out, i may mix up a drink or two, or have a glass of wine.
nothing like a nice cosmo after a hard day of work and a nice hot bath.

LOSTyears

July 10th, 2006, 08:54 PM

Quit smoking a looong time ago, glad I did. Wouldn't be in the shape I'm in now.
Do drink occasionaly normally by myself, not into social drinking. Not really comfortable with anyone when I'm in that state.
Drinking and smoking period is not healthy but you know people do it for whatever reason. Its a person's prerogative.
I've never been one to judge anyone based on their habits.

Japhyl

July 10th, 2006, 08:56 PM

I haven't done either, and I don't ever plan to. I think it's foolish to smoke or drink. I know a lot of people who smoke, and the smell of smoke bothers me, so it bothers me if they smoke around me. I only know a few people who drink. I don't mind being around people who smoke or drink, but I'd rather not be close friends with them.

Holy Knight

July 10th, 2006, 09:04 PM

I will never drink nor smoke. Those substances are nothing but abuse to the body and should be on a self-ban list, since the government won't do it for us.

I've only bee truly drunk once and it's something that should be experienced at least once for the sake of the experience, but more than that is excessive.

Reidar

July 10th, 2006, 09:07 PM

What good will the experience do you? What will you take away from it?

predecessor

July 10th, 2006, 09:10 PM

i don't smoke*not presently anyways* but i don't mind the smell of it. the only time i'll actually go out of my way to mention the smell of smoke is when someone smokes in their house or car and the smell sinks into everything and stales. i hate the smell of stale smoke. luckly that doesn't happen with things like clove ciggarettes or hookah tobacco usually
drinking i don't like people who act like idiots just because they are drinking. as someone said most know what they are doing when drunk*blackouts exempt* but too many times have i heard the excuse "i was drunk" i've drank a few times and got drunk once and i'd do it again *but drink more water. ow*. just excersise common sense. like not getting into the ****ing car.

never would the fact someone smokes or drinks get in the way of me being their friend. thats just stupid. some of the best people you'll ever meet are drinkers, smokers or recreational drug users. kinda pisses me off actually that a thing like that would get in the way of someone being your friend

Holy Knight

July 10th, 2006, 09:15 PM

What good will the experience do you? What will you take away from it?

Maybe that's just me, but I find that if it exists, why not do it? It's there for you to do and see what it does. Maybe you'll get a new insight in things or maybe nothing will come out of it. We are creatures of experiences so one more may be everything or nothing depending on how you choose to use it.

For me, all I got to see was how alcohol muddles you up, makes you sick and stops the propper flow of thoughts as well as liberating inner emotional barriers. I find it to be an interesting state, but not one to be experienced on a regular basis. Once did it for me and that's that. There was no redeeming feature as it was mainly a compilation of negativity with no advantage. So no great illumination from that narrow world of drunkeness for me!

Reidar

July 10th, 2006, 09:17 PM

Maybe that's just me, but I find that if it exists, why not do it? It's there for you to do and see what it does. Maybe you'll get a new insight in things or maybe nothing will come out of it. We are creatures of experiences so one more may be everything or nothing depending on how you choose to use it.

I don't understand that logic. Robbing a bank exists. Why not do it?

EmberAlchemist0

July 10th, 2006, 09:19 PM

I don't smoke and NEVERwill either.
As for drinking yes I have a couple times during the GREAT teen years where experimenting occurs most often.

Rain

July 10th, 2006, 09:30 PM

Neo0tak0n

July 10th, 2006, 09:31 PM

Smoking sensimilla in'a Babylon, it is the Herbman's quest
A Rasta takes one lick from his chalice, a priestman takes on sip from his chalice
So Babylon look and you will find, kali weed is the Rasta man's red wine.

I don't drink because I view alcohol as an agriculturist drug, and as such, an essential drug of the system.

I don't smoke tobacco, but then again, very few do.

Magami No ER

July 10th, 2006, 10:07 PM

Its just sad to see the human race spiraling down to such a low, it disgusts me in such a way I cannot find the words to communicate it.
People have been smoking perhaps since civilization became more recreational with surplus and settrlment. Nothing new.
I don't mean to be so corrective in tone, it's just I always here people saying how bad we are today and are degrading(though I will agree in some cases), but then there's the bits of history that show much improvement.

But ya know, not everyone who smokes is a disgustly hopeless addict who will succumb to their bad habit all while bringing down the rest of we "healthy" specimins of humans down with their filthy air.

Maybe I say this because many in my family smoke(even my great grandfather who lived to be 94 and had only recently quit before), but I certainly will not for obvious health reasons, as well as the terrible ploys the tobcacco companies used in both this country and others, such as Malboro.
Of course, with all of those commercials out there now <WHATHEFUXUP> and whatnot, that's much more common knowlege now.

Sometimes smokers have stressful jobs such as taking care of children with medical disorders such as MS, which put my uncle back to smoking when the gum would not suffice. He certainly wouldn't do it in front on those kids who absolutly should not be in the presence of smoke, but must do while he has greater priorities.
Like in the case of obesity, I think there's a discrimination againist drug users(I'm not talking illict here) which can be seen as justifiable because they're not seen as desirable in addition to not being healthy
But, it's just my opinion that we try to help people who want/really need it, especially if hey're your friends or just good people in general.
As for personal dislike for smoke, the smell doesn't bother me unless in a car(in which case I try my best to bury my head), buut otherwise I'm not bothered. The exception, as I said in the other smoking thread, would be pipe smoke, it's so awful. Thankfully I've only had to wiff it once, and it was some stranger. Uck.

Shiroiyuki

July 11th, 2006, 12:53 AM

Well, I don't smoke--and NEVER, ever will for that matter. Both my parents smoked (in fact, that's what killed my mother), and I found out from them how disgusting the habit was. I despise the smell of cigarettes, and will avoid smoke to the best of my ability.

As for drinking: I can honestly say if medical reasons didn't prevent me from doing so (no gall bladder, liver acts in place of one. Basically, if I drink too much...I'm toast >_<), I'd be a drunk. Hell, I come from a long line of very proud drunks--liver failure is the runner up for the most common cause of death in my family, cancer taking first prize. I used to love wine--white, red...didn't matter to me. It was sensually delicious. I loved it, I loved that calm quiet feeling you get after drinking a few glasses. It was wonderful, rich--relaxing. I didn't drink too often, but every once and a while when my father would bring home a bottle instead of his usual Captain Morgan's or Bacardi rum...I would enjoy a few tall glasses of wine. Oh, those were the good ol' days.

I don't mind drunks personally--as long as they aren't mean drunks that is. If they can hold their liquor, they are fine by me. I was raised in a family of them, I know the drill *shrugs*. I still enjoy an occasional *small* glass of wine on holidays....but no more of the old blissful drunken stupor. *looks down sadly*

The Million Dollar Prons

July 11th, 2006, 01:01 AM

Smoking and drinking make for some badass partying, read some of TuckerMax's stories for example.

MagicianCamille

July 11th, 2006, 01:09 AM

Smoking a cigar and downing a beer at the same time is the definition of cool.

-Nya

Leader Desslock

July 11th, 2006, 01:14 AM

I don't smoke. I ruined my lungs working in a paper mill, so I've had my fill of harsh inhaled chamicals for one lifetime. Both of my parents smoked, so I guess I learned not to smoke by negative example from them. I can be around it, though. Cigar and pipe smoke bothers me less than cigarette smoke.

As for being with someone who smokes? I've done that, and the smell/taste of the tobacco gets completely infused into their system. They have to quit smoking completely for a long time (months) before their body chemistry returns to normal.

As for drinking? I enjoy the occasional glass of wine, but I never drank anything at all until I was in my 30's. I've been drunk before (wine tastings with mead can sneak up on you), but I don't drink in order to GET drunk. I drink to enjoy the wine (saki, mead, port), often with a good meal.

Some people can't hold their alcohol or moderate their own behaviour when they've had something to drink. These people should not drink, and I don't enjoy being around them. I have no problem being around people who are casually enjoying a drink or two at a dinner party or something.

I've never used any form of recreational drugs, nor do I feel the need to do so. I've been around folks that use drugs, and I'll say it's similar to alcohol: prone to abuse and no fun to be around those who do.

I don't tend to drink around people who don't drink, simply out of courtesy. I also don't tend to eat meat around vegetarians, etc.

My vice of choice has always been coffee.

Shiroiyuki

July 11th, 2006, 01:14 AM

Smoking a cigar and downing a beer at the same time is the definition of cool.

Ehhhh beer is disgusting. Tastes like piss and looks like it too. You wonder why, not long after drinking a couple, you have to go to the bathroom so badly--the stuff doesn't even have to change color in your system...it's basically already processed for you. YUCK >_< beer, I'll never understand why so many people love it. Ugh.

CrossboneGundam

July 11th, 2006, 02:14 AM

Smoking is disgusting.

However, I do drink and I do get drunk, but not excessively. I've been sober for awhile now actually, I've on many occasions thought about stopping drinking entirely but it never works out in the end. Heh, so much for my "strong" willpower.

Yeah, flame me all you want now.

[questionable intentions]Let me buy you a drink![/questionable intentions]

My mom smoked when I was a kid, so I learned to dislike tobacco at an early age.

I don't drink because I've never had an alcoholic drink that didn't taste terrible. :lol:

Warabit

July 11th, 2006, 05:02 AM

I don't smoke tobacco, but then again, very few do.

Around here where I live everyone and their mother smokes,no joke.

Magami - I didnt the people that smoke or drink are disgusting, you their habits. I have many aquantances(sp) who smoke/drink/illegaldrugs even afew that sell drugs. But I keep them an arms length away, as aquantances. Alot of them are really cool actually.

I dont think a glass of wine when you go out to a nice dinner is detestable either. I think that can be rather classy, but should be done in moderation as Dess said.

The Million Dollar Prons

July 11th, 2006, 05:06 AM

Around here where I live everyone and their mother smokes,no joke.

Yeah but what you probably didn't know is due to rising smoke prices (50 bucks a carton here) everyone has to buy the cheapest cigs, which are made of, ya know, sawdust and chopped up corn husks

Raziel_MGS

July 11th, 2006, 06:08 AM

I guess I am the only one here who drinks and smokes. Being in college its pretty much expected with over 1/4 of the people at Purdue smoking and like 90% drink. I never feel pressured to but I enjoy drinking and smoking. I mean everything is about moderation. I have gotten piss drunk and vomitted and I have also reached a perfect drinking state where you dont get hung over but feel great. So I dunno, maybe there is a link between anime and nonsmoking?

Stafal-chan

July 11th, 2006, 06:11 AM

..i won't smoke....it would mess up my running...but i can be around others who do smoke...:P....as for drinking....well....yeah i drink quite a bit :p

Salainen

July 11th, 2006, 06:34 AM

WadeW

July 11th, 2006, 06:42 AM

So I dunno, maybe there is a link between anime and nonsmoking?

My theory is that most anime fans are nerds, and most nerds are too smart to smoke, drink, or do drugs, as they kill you and can lead to bad choices.

That being said, I just came back in from a smoke, love a good drink, and have gone to anime club meetings completely baked more than a few times.

I just feel that going to the rave at Otakon sober is a waste of time. Is that so wrong?

Salainen

July 11th, 2006, 06:44 AM

I am not a nerd really...Of course of all the fans of anime I am also not the most obssessed either...What I mean by that is, I do not go to conventions or anything of that kind...I just enjoy watching it because I like the art and the stories...

Stafal-chan

July 11th, 2006, 06:47 AM

i take offense to that WadeW....i'm not a nerd....>_<...not at all...and i am an anime fan....like i said i won't smoke...heh heh drinking...^_^...i'm not an alcoholic.......not yet...:P

Raziel_MGS

July 11th, 2006, 08:35 AM

WadeW, you are my kind of person, haha

GreatNekoKoneko

July 11th, 2006, 09:07 AM

... im a smoker. sometimes i can chain like up to half a pack in a day - which is really bad. as for drinking, i only drink at parties. well, i can hold my liquor. tequila doesn't do squat for me, but whiskey and bourbon certainly do give me a kick in the ol' liver. in fact, i recently had my annual checkup and the doctor said to cut down on the ol' sauce, since my liver function tests came out 200. the norm is 30. that spooked me there. havent had a drink in weeks. and i kinda keel great.

sailornyanko

July 11th, 2006, 11:27 AM

Never actively smoked tobacco in my life. Like others who hate the idea of smoking, I git the don't copy this habit from my mother who is a freaking log cabin. I guess I should enjoy what little time left we'll have considering people from her side of the family drop dead at age 70 and she's already 57. She doesn't want to quit. At least she doesn't smoke nearly as much in the places where I am anymore.

Sadly most people I know are tobacco addicts. Medicine somehow attracts legal drug users like you wouldn't believe. Some of my teachers are hopeless log cabins that smoke INSIDE of the classroom even though it's against the rules.

Curiously I have smoked pot. But frankly I don't like the flavor when it's smoked, I just really like the smell of the smoke when someone else is smoking it. Relaxing. Wished they had insense of it.

As of alcohol, I do like it. But only very specific things: Rum, Brandy, Tepache (which is a sort of fermented pineapple drink that kinda tastes like beer) and Tequila. I hate normal beer, I hate wine and I hate champagne. I've never drunk Vodka but I have smoked it in a narguille once.

I've gotten slightly drunk a few times but I'm not the annoying soul of the party or violent type. Actually the most I do is laugh a bit, stare in mid air at nothing and eventually sleep. I never vomit, fall down (figure ice skating is an amazing tool for sustaining your balance) and most interestingly, I've never ever had a hangover. I don't know what it is really. Hrmm.. thinking of it, once I was feeling like vomiting but it was because they were playing Britney Spears's Toxic song on the radio. Once the song ended, I felt fine. My body reacts to bad music. :lol:

I only drink hard during parties. And when I mean hard, I mean two Cubas or 1 small bottle of brandy drunk real fast. I get happy real fast but the effect lasts very little on me. I'm also the type that remembers exactly everything when I'm drunk. I don't lose my memory like my best friend does. Ugh, he's so annoying when he's drunk. I'm going to an important party where a bunch of mexican actors will be so I hope he doesn't make a scene. The main effect alcohol has on me is that I'm not moody anymore but cheerful. In parties that's probably a good thing cuse I normally have a bad temper.

As long as you keep your smoking cigarrettes (cigars is fine) moderate near me because I'm allergic and you aren't rude ansd pushy with me to drink beer, I'm fine with hanging out with drinkers and smokers. I've found all pot smokers I've met to be really courteous in this respect. Want some? No thanks. Okay I won't ever bother you again. I wished beer drinkers were 1/4th as thoughtful.

Joeshie

July 11th, 2006, 11:36 AM

I don't smoke and never plan on doing it. It's expensive and deadly. Kind of a no-brainer there.

I drink occassionally, but I usually don't drink that much. I'm not a fan of beer as it tastes awful and usually prefer mixed drinks if I do drink.

EternityOfPain

July 11th, 2006, 11:36 AM

Me and my girlfriend were talking the other day about drinking and smoking.
I just think they are both so disgusting and repugnant. I do not have alot of friends because of this (though the ones I do have are close). I was asked to goto multiple partys when I was in highschool, and I turned all of them down and flat out told them that I did not smoke or drink. Never have never will. And they looked at me like I was from a different planet. I am the only guy at work that doesn't take smoking breaks. It seems like thats all anyone does on friday or saturday nights. Its just sad to see the human race spiraling down to such a low, it disgusts me in such a way I cannot find the words to communicate it.

I am not directly attacking anyone, just curious as to what others think because I know there are others out there like me.
What are your thoughts?

First I want to say thats a bit ironic: "it disgusts me in such a way I cannot find the words to communicate it.." *looks at your avatar* :lol:

Anyways pretaining to the topic I also do not drink or smoke. However, I am not so much as an activist trying to convince others to not smoke or drink, I believe its your choice. One main reason I dont smoke is frankly I know the health related side affects to well (several relatives have died because of smoking/drinking) so I have never touched the stuff (unless you count whats in medicine :P ). Not to mention, hell it takes away from my anime money!

..i won't smoke....it would mess up my running...but i can be around others who do smoke...:P....as for drinking....well....yeah i drink quite a bit :p

No offense but have you heard of 2nd hand smoking?

HSaabedra

July 11th, 2006, 11:46 AM

I had to boot and lose my best friend of 10 years because he decided he wanted to smoke weed and do drugs with his fiancee every day, rather than being a responsible adult since we shared an apartment together that was under my name. I did/do not tolerate the use of narcotics within my household, and he was cited for posession. I lost friends but gained perspective.

HSaabedra

July 11th, 2006, 11:50 AM

As far as drinking and smoking go, it's not for me. I've got too much else to occupy my time with.

Reinas

July 11th, 2006, 11:52 AM

never would the fact someone smokes or drinks get in the way of me being their friend. thats just stupid. some of the best people you'll ever meet are drinkers, smokers or recreational drug users. kinda pisses me off actually that a thing like that would get in the way of someone being your friend

A couple of my friends I've gotten to know better when we've gone out for a drink. Alcohol, I find loosens people up and everyone is more sociable.

Warabit

July 11th, 2006, 12:30 PM

First I want to say thats a bit ironic: "it disgusts me in such a way I cannot find the words to communicate it.." *looks at your avatar* :lol:

Anyways pretaining to the topic I also do not drink or smoke. However, I am not so much as an activist trying to convince others to not smoke or drink, I believe its your choice. One main reason I dont smoke is frankly I know the health related side affects to well (several relatives have died because of smoking/drinking) so I have never touched the stuff (unless you count whats in medicine :P ). Not to mention, hell it takes away from my anime money!

No offense but have you heard of 2nd hand smoking?

Lol, yeah i know :P but its Onizuka, comon! :)
Your so right with the money thing too. My aunt died recently because of smoking.

Perperikon010

July 11th, 2006, 03:26 PM

Look, I don't smoke and never will because I dislike the smell. Other people like it and do smoke. They are most probably aware of the health risks and it's their choice. Pollution isn't but nobody complains as much about that. Plus, I associate cigarette smoke with some of my favourite people bacause they smoke. Life's like that - deal with it.
As for alcohol - it's been part of civilization since fermentation was discovered by the ancient Egyptians. As long as it's in moderation it's actually proven to be beneficial. I don't see people complaining about cheese. I don't want to get drunk and don't find drunken behaviour amusing, but I can understand that some people are conformist and lacking in common sense, but that's nothing new. Plus, on a humid day like today, you just want a class of cold white wine...

predecessor

July 11th, 2006, 03:34 PM

Plus, on a humid day like today, you just want a class of cold white wine...
glass of sweet OK valley ice wine and a kretek*if you smoke* would be a perfect combo. yay for living in canadian wine country.haha

Perperikon010

July 11th, 2006, 03:47 PM

Ahh, lucky you! ^_^

dothacker5

July 11th, 2006, 03:52 PM

I don't care what anyone says but I'm 15 and smoke cigs and weed every now and then. I don't like drinking though it burns my throat and isn't worth it to me. I just do it out of boredom and fun I also like the taste. All of it's my business no one elses.

Reidar

July 11th, 2006, 03:56 PM

Then why did you explain it?

dothacker5

July 11th, 2006, 03:58 PM

I was referring to the people who ***** at you for smoking and what not. I was saying their opinion doesn't matter to me.

Tidusauron12

July 11th, 2006, 04:01 PM

I'm 19 and have never had a drink nor a smoke, and I never intend to. The human body is already weak enough without substances like those.

Same here. I don't hang around smokers because of 2nd hand smoke. I don't hang around drinkers beause it just annoys me. Unfortunately, my dad does both...

Reidar

July 11th, 2006, 04:02 PM

You said "no one", actually.

Raziel_MGS

July 11th, 2006, 05:04 PM

I am also sick of that crap too about drinking and smoking, until this kids get to college, they dont realize how many people do it and their friends prolly do it, I feel that not being friends with certain people because of that causes you to lose out on realtionships that are beneficial but whatever

Sendo Takeshi

July 11th, 2006, 05:21 PM

I drink and "smoke" on occassion. I do it socially. Well, the latter that is. Drinking is about every Friday night with peeps. But thats probably like two or three beers.

And to those that say beer tastes and looks like piss: There's more than the generic brands.

But yeah, I smoke weed and that's about it when it comes to inhaling "extra curicular" fumes in the lungs. Herbal essence FTW!!!

Holy Knight

July 11th, 2006, 05:54 PM

I don't understand that logic. Robbing a bank exists. Why not do it?

Technically, one could say "evidently, why not? There's nothing but yourself to stop you". However, that's going into the extremities of such logic, which is not what I intended to say.

I going along the lines of day to day matters. Another example I can give out is directly in this forum on Pron's Ideon thread where I bashed SDF Macross for being "embarassing" and so I would be reluctant to watch SRI since it is an old anime and I would not get a good feeling out of it. Though me being me, I still went ahead and watched the first episode and finished by liking it.

I did not learn anything from this other than not to dismiss what one dislikes because you actually might. Experience is what you are and it's all you'll ever see so why push it away? Another advantage of this is that you can come to see the opposing point of view in many matters and come to a better understanding of various situations.

However, all that's granted if you stick to experiences that are "safe" and do not involve, as I said, extremities. You then have to pay the consequences of whatever's to come, be it the Law, emotional or societal.

And to those that say beer tastes and looks like piss: There's more than the generic brands.

My one experience at being drunk involved Guiness (apparently highly valued), Sapporo (Japanece rice beer) and Jose Cuervo especial Tequila. All three are supposedly high grade (or so I'm told) drinks. Well, they tasted quite awful to me and only affirmed my position on being anti-alcohol. I've also tasted others beers which were brand names and probably bland where indeed awful, too.

As for wine, even worse. And don't get me started on coffee. Some drinks are best left to those who enjoy them. I'll pass and at least I can claim I have reason to pass.

Haro!

July 11th, 2006, 05:57 PM

..i won't smoke....it would mess up my running...but i can be around others who do smoke...:P....as for drinking....well....yeah i drink quite a bit :p
For some odd reason I now want to go out drinking with Stafal.

Bernard_Monsha

July 11th, 2006, 06:05 PM

Me and my girlfriend were talking the other day about drinking and smoking.
I just think they are both so disgusting and repugnant. I do not have alot of friends because of this (though the ones I do have are close). I was asked to goto multiple partys when I was in highschool, and I turned all of them down and flat out told them that I did not smoke or drink. Never have never will. And they looked at me like I was from a different planet. I am the only guy at work that doesn't take smoking breaks. It seems like thats all anyone does on friday or saturday nights. Its just sad to see the human race spiraling down to such a low, it disgusts me in such a way I cannot find the words to communicate it.

I am not directly attacking anyone, just curious as to what others think because I know there are others out there like me.
What are your thoughts?

Smokeing is a vice that has been around since time immemorial. Acohol saved the human race more than once. It was a staple of the diet and kept us going when water quality was non existant. So the next time you sneer at a person downing an Arrogant Bastard think back to the fact you owe everything you know to that concoction.

Reidar

July 11th, 2006, 06:42 PM

Technically, one could say "evidently, why not? There's nothing but yourself to stop you". However, that's going into the extremities of such logic, which is not what I intended to say.

I would respond with, "Because calamity like that would lead to a world without logic. This invalidates your posts because you are not on the side of logic and hence are in an inadequate position to debate."

I did not learn anything from this other than not to dismiss what one dislikes because you actually might. Experience is what you are and it's all you'll ever see so why push it away? Another advantage of this is that you can come to see the opposing point of view in many matters and come to a better understanding of various situations.

What if I want to experience the experience of never experimenting with experiences I dislike?

Holy Knight

July 11th, 2006, 07:12 PM

I would respond with, "Because calamity like that would lead to a world without logic. This invalidates your posts because you are not on the side of logic and hence are in an inadequate position to debate."

Quite true. However, I was basing my argument of the fact that logic does not dictate action. Emotions do. Logically, if you want money quickly then one of the actions you could take is to rob a bank, though there is a high risk in doing such. I'm not sure I'm being clear here, so please do correct me if I err.

What if I want to experience the experience of never experimenting with experiences I dislike?

Then that's an experience in itself. :P

What I find interesting is that however you choose to experience things you still miss out of the complete opposite of the experience. That is, not experiencing it. Therefore, experiencing everything is out of the question. You would need to be the operator of two distinct souls in their own space/times and even then you either experience everything or nothing. You need an infinite number of experimentors to determine the possibilities of experience itself - a reason why humans are so interesting.

As to if things arebetter if experienced or not is up to debate. Personally, I find humans the perfect guinea pigs in this subject - we get to see a percentage of the population to experiment with life in their own ways and we get to see the results! So in this case, those who chose to smoke or drink can recount their tales and we can choose whether or not we wish to pursue that path.

So yeah, this makes mad scientists obsolete in the sense that humans already do worse with themselves than what any evil genius could ever devise. ^_^

Reidar

July 11th, 2006, 07:17 PM

Quite true. However, I was basing my argument of the fact that logic does not dictate action. Emotions do. Logically, if you want money quickly then one of the actions you could take is to rob a bank, though there is a high risk in doing such. I'm not sure I'm being clear here, so please do correct me if I err.

You would use logic for that course of action. By taking a gun with you, you are using logic. By masking your face, you are using logic. Hell, robbing a bank is a logical act itself. Bank = money. You can use that money in the future. You can't use that money immediately in its present form by itself. You have to logically deduce what the money can bring you.

Then that's an experience in itself. :P

What I find interesting is that however you choose to experience things you still miss out of the complete opposite of the experience. That is, not experiencing it. Therefore, experiencing everything is out of the question. You would need to be the operator of two distinct souls in their own space/times.

As to if things arebetter if experienced or not is up to debate.

Not according to you. You said that getting drunk should be experienced, which is saying that experiencing drinking is better than experiencing the experience of never drinking. Why? On what grounds?

emotoaster

July 11th, 2006, 07:33 PM

Suki

July 11th, 2006, 07:45 PM

Aww, some people never have fun. Usually your first drink is the best.

Holy Knight

July 11th, 2006, 08:25 PM

Not according to you. You said that getting drunk should be experienced, which is saying that experiencing drinking is better than experiencing the experience of never drinking. Why? On what grounds?

Ah sure, but that's personal opinion and who's to say that I'm a sage? I feel that experiences should be heaped upon experiences, though I'm quite hypocritical in saying this as I haven't experienced much, per se.

And experiencing drunkenness just once in your lifetime won't do much in the long run. You might have a headache the next morning and a few hundred brain cells fried, but doing so only once allows you the right of making a somewhat informed decision as to this particular experience. A parent who has nevr drunk a single drop of alcohol is quite badly placed to chide his how child in the vices of drink when he or she has no experience whatsoever in this area of life. Saying "studies and the experiences of others have shown that..." does not say that you comprehend what it actually means.

Conclusion? Only a drug addict can tell you that drugs are harmfull because he has lost half his brain and all his money in the process. He can claim rightfully that experiencing drugs is a harm in itself, since he was the consequence of his own decisions. That is not to say, however, that you should experience harm to your body in order to satisfy the thirst for this kind of knowledge, only that one should at least know what life tastes like, rather than relying on the experiences of others.

And even so, I shall not touch a drop of coffee, drugs, alcohol nor smoke, since I have had just enough of each to decide whether or not to experience them fully. And my decision on these is: I ain't touching. And that's something only experience could have given me as it gave me reason to validate my choice (which is what I have been long-winded in driving to).

Reidar

July 11th, 2006, 08:34 PM

Ah sure, but that's personal opinion and who's to say that I'm a sage? I feel that experiences should be heaped upon experiences, though I'm quite hypocritical in saying this as I haven't experienced much, per se.

It wasn't that your statement conflicted with others' views or anything, it's that your two statements conflicted with each other. On one hand you're saying that getting drunk should be experienced over the other, and on the other hand you're saying that one experience isn't more important than the other.

Conclusion? Only a drug addict can tell you that drugs are harmfull because he has lost half his brain and all his money in the process. He can claim rightfully that experiencing drugs is a harm in itself, since he was the consequence of his own decisions. That is not to say, however, that you should experience harm to your body in order to satisfy the thirst for this kind of knowledge, only that one should at least know what life tastes like, rather than relying on the experiences of others.

There are multiple aspects of life in simultaneous contingency. While you're drinking, you will be missing out on refraining from drinking. It's impossible to know what you suggested.

Neo0tak0n

July 11th, 2006, 08:48 PM

Smokeing is a vice that has been around since time immemorial. Acohol saved the human race more than once. It was a staple of the diet and kept us going when water quality was non existant. So the next time you sneer at a person downing an Arrogant Bastard think back to the fact you owe everything you know to that concoction.

When alcoholic drinks were a staple, the alcohol content of those drinks were far less than anything drunk now. Most likely just enough alcohol for cleaning the water up.

Alcoholism wasn't a problem until the discovery of distillation.

And don't forget the Chinese didn't need alcohol to make clean water. They understood the power of boiling.

Warabit

July 11th, 2006, 08:55 PM

Both my parents are alcoholics and smokers so, I'm not really into it. I have seen what it has done to them and it aint cool, add the fact that I probably would get addicted to it easier because of that it aint a good formula....

Don't get me wrong I'll probably in the future *cough* college*cough* have an ocassional drink, but I'm in no rush, and even if or when I do drink (I'll NEVER smoke) I will always be aware in the back of my mind to stay sane :P.

My parents both came from homes where alcohol and smoking literally tore their families to shreds, one of two aunts on my dad's side died from smoking, the other is completely poor and her voice is so hoarse...and his dad was an alcoholic and was never home.

My mothers dad died from alcohol poisoning while cheating on his wife. Her brothers(7) smoked, drank, did drugs...and well...2 are divorced with 2 kids each and they still drink to get drunk. One lives in a warehouse with his son from his divorced wife, piss poor. And most of her brothers children were/are drug addicts, been in and out of jail...

maybe I am just crazy but...if there were no drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes involved in my familys history maybe it wouldnt have turned out so disasterously.

CrossboneGundam

July 11th, 2006, 09:23 PM

Smokeing is a vice that has been around since time immemorial. Acohol saved the human race more than once. It was a staple of the diet and kept us going when water quality was non existant. So the next time you sneer at a person downing an Arrogant Bastard think back to the fact you owe everything you know to that concoction.

Well, we did get by pretty decently for several million years without alcohol.

And smoking's only been around for a couple thousand at most, too.

Bernard_Monsha

July 11th, 2006, 09:45 PM

Well, we did get by pretty decently for several million years without alcohol.

And smoking's only been around for a couple thousand at most, too.

not really, we have only been around less than a milllion years. before then we were not top dog nor were we sucessful enough to create written languages, archtecture and farming.

We actually don't know we do the Coahuilticans smoked, they are were the oldest tribe in north american speaking an archaic branch of Uto Aztecan and had been forced to their liveing quarters by further migration (read invasions of other language groups). The only two other indians in this group (the ones in Southern Florida killed off by introduced disease and the Seminoles and the inhabitants of the baja peninsula do the same thing and spoke the same dialect.) So at some time all these tribes learned how to smoke before the other languages broke them up and drove them south.

Rain

July 11th, 2006, 10:00 PM

[questionable intentions]Let me buy you a drink![/questionable intentions]

You are sooo smooth.

I don't drink because I've never had an alcoholic drink that didn't taste terrible. :lol:

So, is this how it works now? You, Irish boy, are buying me a drink but aren't drinkin' yourself? You need a serious smack up the head.

@Reidar - I wonder if you've driven Holy Knight insane yet.

I agree that everyone should at least try smoking or drinking once in their life. It makes for a rather amusing experience.

Reidar

July 11th, 2006, 10:03 PM

Alcohol hinders testosterone production. And he's already insane.

Rain

July 11th, 2006, 10:12 PM

Alcohol hinders testosterone production. And he's already insane.

It seems that a lot of things these days have that effect, no?

Oh, thanks for letting me know.

Neo0tak0n

July 11th, 2006, 10:20 PM

We actually don't know we do the Coahuilticans smoked, they are were the oldest tribe in north american speaking an archaic branch of Uto Aztecan and had been forced to their liveing quarters by further migration (read invasions of other language groups). The only two other indians in this group (the ones in Southern Florida killed off by introduced disease and the Seminoles and the inhabitants of the baja peninsula do the same thing and spoke the same dialect.) So at some time all these tribes learned how to smoke before the other languages broke them up and drove them south.

Well, we got hard evidence in the form of smoking pipes dating from both second and first millenium BC. But it would not suprise me at all if the psychotropic using Siberians immediately used tobacco as soon as they came across it in the Americas.

jm_fig

July 11th, 2006, 10:20 PM

I don't have a problem with smokers or drinkers. I used to smoke I don't now though I do have a drink sometimes. I guess I'm not the kind of person to judge another. pz.

emotoaster

July 11th, 2006, 10:20 PM

Reidar doesn't need a drink he runs off pure adrenaline to get him going!

Mooserocka

July 12th, 2006, 02:13 AM

I guess im a bad guy. I smoke, I drink, I take painkillers yea I try to enjoy life to the fullest

Chicito

July 12th, 2006, 07:12 AM

I Don't smoke, I drink with my friends when they got some (which is not often).

Raziel_MGS

July 12th, 2006, 08:12 AM

dude once reidar goes to college, 5 to 1 he'll be drunk the first month, or ill go get him drunk...oh and guiness is not a drink to get drunk off of, its a dark beer and thus is too filling to drink for drunk sake, try something lighter like anhauser( bad spelling)....

MonkeyBoy0314

July 12th, 2006, 08:39 AM

predecessor

July 12th, 2006, 10:38 AM

Drinking and smoking killed my grandfather before I even got to meet him, it makes my stepdad cranky often, it cost my best friend his mind, and it is well on its way to killing off my hero, Eddie Van Halen (current avatar).

I think I have every reason to take a negative approach to this subject.
i don't know what the hell eddie has been up too lately but all i see is that he likes to have fun. give him the liberty. if he wants to quite hes gonna. not a damn thing you or any other kids who worship him is gonna do anything. if hes having fun let him have it. but then again i haven't kept track of what hes been doing in a long time. cause IMO his good years are long gone. now james hetfield. i'll buy the ****ing beers for him. st anger was proof he needs to drink to make decent music

and how old was your grandfather. if he was over 65 it could be anything. if it was lung cancer smoking isn't the only thing that causes it. if it was a heart attack well teenagers are dieing of heart attacks these days. you can't just blame the same scapegoat. there are too many things out there that cause what smoking and drinking supposedly does

this wasn't meant as a personal attack if you take it that way. i'm just voicing some real truth

Lionfish

July 12th, 2006, 10:47 AM

I dont like to smoke. Cant stand it really, but I drink alot. Not constantly though.

Professor Funk

July 12th, 2006, 11:08 AM

Fobb

July 12th, 2006, 12:00 PM

Poster man should be Muslim because we share that opinion.
:)

Holy Knight

July 12th, 2006, 01:50 PM

It wasn't that your statement conflicted with others' views or anything, it's that your two statements conflicted with each other. On one hand you're saying that getting drunk should be experienced over the other, and on the other hand you're saying that one experience isn't more important than the other.

My personal opinion is that one experience should have more value than another according to personal views of the person in question. Getting drunk for the experience is important, yes. However, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter if you do or not.

There are multiple aspects of life in simultaneous contingency. While you're drinking, you will be missing out on refraining from drinking. It's impossible to know what you suggested.

Exactly, that's why I refered to humans being perfect in the sense that each experiences something to tell others about. The only thing an individual is missing out is what the other experienced.

And I never claimed not to be insane. :P

Yugi

July 12th, 2006, 08:00 PM

Get Crunk all the time. LOLOLOLOL

Some of you guys are crazy, talking about how the human body is already weak LMAO !!! :-)

Humans have been drinking for almost as long as we have been civilized. If anything we drink less than the times of Gin alley and such

Haro!

July 12th, 2006, 08:31 PM

Poster man should be Muslim because we share that opinion.
:)
That's a bit ironic 'cause my drinking crew is all muslim ^_^ .

Loopy

July 12th, 2006, 08:52 PM

I have never drunk nor smoked and I have no plans to do so in the future.

Reidar

July 12th, 2006, 10:44 PM

Some of you guys are crazy, talking about how the human body is already weak LMAO !!! :-)

Humans have been drinking for almost as long as we have been civilized. If anything we drink less than the times of Gin alley and such

Yes, and humans were physically weak back then as well.

Rain

July 12th, 2006, 10:54 PM

I'm not going to lie, I love beer (I guess it's the irish in me).

At least if you like to drink, have better taste.

Beer? No.

emotoaster

July 12th, 2006, 11:00 PM

Reidar do you have any vices? :P

Reidar

July 12th, 2006, 11:40 PM

I...hit people.

predecessor

July 12th, 2006, 11:46 PM

I...hit people.
the first step is admiting you have a problem*pats Reidar on the back*

Reidar

July 13th, 2006, 12:13 AM

You're right. Violence isn't the answer.

It's the question. The answer is yes.

predecessor

July 13th, 2006, 12:21 AM

You're right. Violence isn't the answer.

It's the question. The answer is yes.
yes. true wisdom.........*sneak*...........*heel hook*

CeLL_288

July 13th, 2006, 06:50 AM

You're right. Violence isn't the answer.

It's the question. The answer is yes.Hahahaha. Sigged.

Holy Knight

July 13th, 2006, 06:54 AM

Cell!!! Welcome back! We need more philosophers down here! Desslock has been lonely without his evil twin to back him up.

CeLL_288

July 13th, 2006, 07:21 AM

Yay! Holy Knight, you're still here! How have things been? I thought you said you were leaving?

Yeah, all my friends came back from college, and I started hanging out with them, then the college that I'm going to started sending me books and stuff that I need to read, so I've been really busy. Unfortunately, as of July 21st I will MIA again, as I'm going on a month long hiking trip in Utah. I'll be back towards the end of August though! :)

Anyhoo, I tried smoking cigars a couple times in high school. It was kind of... pointless. You just suck the smoke into your mouth and blow it out again. And the smoke tastes bad. Why would anyone do this enough to get addicted to it? Cigarettes actually do something, but the negative aspects of smoking them far outweigh any positive ones, in my opinion. As for weed, I hated the effect it had on me, so I only did it once.

Getting drunk is pointless. A similar (and much less harmful) effect can be achieved by doing breathing squats.

quaze6

July 13th, 2006, 07:28 AM

My theory is that most anime fans are nerds, and most nerds are too smart to smoke, drink, or do drugs, as they kill you and can lead to bad choices.

That being said, I just came back in from a smoke, love a good drink, and have gone to anime club meetings completely baked more than a few times.

I just feel that going to the rave at Otakon sober is a waste of time. Is that so wrong?

no, that is not so wrong. however, im not really a nerd. in fact,im like the opposite of a nerd(on the football team, hang out with the "cool" crowd, ect.). i just watch anime.so, not all anime fans are nerds.
i hate tobacco, because it is uhealthy, and disgusting. on the other hand, i like to get drunk sometimes. about once or twice a week . as for recreational drugs, i get high anywhere from 3 to 20 times a week, depending on if i have school, or what im doing that day .i dont do any drugs other than pot, but i plan to try shrooms when i get home next week. but thats as far as ill go, cause i dont want to become a crack junkie or something.

WadeW

July 13th, 2006, 07:59 AM

but thats as far as ill go, cause i dont want to become a crack junkie or something.

I don't know how you go from shrooms to crack, but good for you. Enjoy your trip. First time's always the best. :thumbsup:

Neo0tak0n

July 13th, 2006, 09:26 AM

Yes, and humans were physically weak back then as well.

No they werent.

Reidar

July 13th, 2006, 09:37 AM

No they werent.

Yes they were. The strongest men of today were made possible through science that wasn't available back then.

Warabit

July 13th, 2006, 12:40 PM

Yes they were. The strongest men of today were made possible through science that wasn't available back then.

I think i might have to agree with that, we can more fine tune our bodys these days due to science.

Neo0tak0n

July 13th, 2006, 01:47 PM

Yes they were. The strongest men of today were made possible through science that wasn't available back then.

No. And I am sure the immune systems of people 15 thousand years ago were a hell of a lot better than what you got in your body right now. You must understand that as technology and medicine place things into our body, the body is not getting stronger, it is getting weaker.

Holy Knight

July 13th, 2006, 01:50 PM

Neo0tak0n

July 13th, 2006, 02:02 PM

I demand proof. Both of Reidar's theory and yours. What's to say either of you is right?

Allergies, for one. Its not news. Search for the long term effects of anti-biotics on the immune system.

When you're nose gets stuffy, and you pop some pseudofed to clear it up, you are attacking your own self-defense mechanisms.

Victory

July 13th, 2006, 02:14 PM

well this got me interested so I looked it up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

basically life expectancy is rising

oh and they didn't have allergies to deal with back then because they were too busy dying at the old age of 20

Soluzar

July 13th, 2006, 02:18 PM

It's the vices that make life worth living. I don't drink much, because I get a hangover really easily. Besides, when I drink, I drink way too much. After years of heavy drinking I just got tired of wasting collossal sums of money to wake up with a hangover.

Smoking on the other hand is a vice I do have. Now before any of y'all give me trouble, I don't smoke in public, and I don't smoke around non-smokers. I don't inflict my vices on other people, and sure it might be unhealthy for me, but I don't plan on living forever. It's my own damn business, and as for the reasons, I find a smoke is very relaxing, not to mention that I actually like the taste of the smoke.

Anyone got any hatin' comments? Keep 'em to yourself.

Perperikon010

July 13th, 2006, 02:18 PM

Allergies, for one. Its not news. Search for the long term effects of anti-biotics on the immune system.

When you're nose gets stuffy, and you pop some pseudofed to clear it up, you are attacking your own self-defense mechanisms.

I agree, insofar as you are letting the drug deal with the infection without waiting for your body to mount a full immune responce. Plus peple were more fit in the past due to all the physical labour they had to undergo in order to gain their daily bread. However, our immune systems are able to fight a broader range of antigens nowadays simply due to the fact that we've lived through and survived the diseases and other irritants history had to offer. Mad dictators too. It's my personal belief that we'll soon develop an aversion to dictatorships, but give it time...Anyway, back on topic, overall, I believe we are less fit than our ancestors, but come to the common cold and we're more likely to survive. And we'll toast that with mead.

MonkeyBoy0314

July 13th, 2006, 02:37 PM

i don't know what the hell eddie has been up too lately but all i see is that he likes to have fun. give him the liberty. if he wants to quite hes gonna. not a damn thing you or any other kids who worship him is gonna do anything. if hes having fun let him have it. but then again i haven't kept track of what hes been doing in a long time. cause IMO his good years are long gone.
http://www.geocities.com/kaidousspritelibrary/eddievanhalen.jpg
Scary, huh? :x

now james hetfield. i'll buy the ****ing beers for him. st anger was proof he needs to drink to make decent music
The last thing Hetfield needs is to be goinging back to his old habits. I think they just need to get Newstead back, replace Lars with the substitue drummer (Rob Bourdon, also of Linkin Park), and (most importantly) BRING BACK THE SOLOS! :ssj:

and how old was your grandfather. if he was over 65 it could be anything. if it was lung cancer smoking isn't the only thing that causes it. if it was a heart attack well teenagers are dieing of heart attacks these days. you can't just blame the same scapegoat. there are too many things out there that cause what smoking and drinking supposedly does

this wasn't meant as a personal attack if you take it that way. i'm just voicing some real truth
If I can remember, my grandfather was in his late thirties when he died. But then again, he smoked a cigar and drank a glass of whiskey with every meal, so I guess it was bound to happen.

Reidar

July 13th, 2006, 02:56 PM

No. And I am sure the immune systems of people 15 thousand years ago were a hell of a lot better than what you got in your body right now. You must understand that as technology and medicine place things into our body, the body is not getting stronger, it is getting weaker.

Strawman. Nevermind the fact that that claim is completely unfounded; you're changing the context of what we're speaking in. The literal definition of strength is the amount of maximal isometric contractive force applied. In fact, the way I asserted my point with, "The strongest men of today were made possible through science that wasn't available back then" makes it astounding that you would even misunderstand that. What did you think I meant by, "The strongest of men"? The guys with the best immune system? Once again, there is nobody in our history as strong as the strongest men alive today.

As for your conjecture on our immune systems growing weaker: no. The HIS builds up resistance to foreign antibodies the more they're used, and consequently a new one would have to be introduced to further the treatment (whatever it may be). This is in no way, shape, or form weakening the overall system moreso than its original conformation. The only aspect that's lessened is its reaction to the specific medicine that's being prescribed and any other substances that may contain an identical property (which wouldn't be a problem for natural-occuring bodies in the system because of their less-construed chemical construction). In other words, it's weakening it to the artificially-created, man-made chemistry -- chemistry that isn't even a factor for both folks living in earlier times and people today who haven't been subjected to the according antibiotic.

"Only using antibiotics when they are absolutely necessary will help to stop the evolution of resistant strains of bacteria. When they are needed, a simple way to reduce resistance is to make certain that any course of antibiotic treatment is completed." The aforementioned resistant strains (which is what you were referring to) wouldn't even be a factor without the biotic formula. Effectively, it's an eye for an eye -- you're sacrificing one thing for the other. There's no aspect that makes it inherently "worse" than the state that your system started out with.

Cited works:
http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/biology/abpi/immune/immune8.html
http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/patientcare/healthinformation/diseasesandconditions/infectious/immunesystem/

Victory

July 13th, 2006, 04:03 PM

Regarding allergies -
Allergies are the result of an overly sensitive immune system, that is, your body responds to a harmless substance (like delicious peanut butter) in the same way it would to a bacteria or a virus. In the case of hay fever, the body eventually (through a series a steps once the foreign body is detected) releases histamine which binds to H1 receptors and triggers the runny/itchy nose and other symptoms.

Pseudofed's active agent is pseudoephedrin whose effect is to constrict blood vessels, this stops your nose from running by tightening the nasal mucous membrane - it does not have a direct effect on the allergic reaction.

The drug class you're talking about is anti-H1 or H1-receptor antagonists which is a fancy way of saying that such drugs interfere with the H1 receptors to prevent histamine from binding properly and causing unwanted symptoms.

This means allergies are not infections and that anti-H1 drugs do not prevent the immune system from recognizing new threats - if anything, the immune system being too sensitive is the root of this particular problem. Err most importantly taking pseudoephedrin or antihistamines won't "make your immune system weaker" in the long term is what I'm getting at (assuming you follow the recommend dosages, I'm sure you could get in trouble taking the whole damned bottle but that's common sense)

Reidar could you explain "less-construed chemical construction"?

Reidar

July 13th, 2006, 04:24 PM

Antibiotics devised and/or altered in a lab versus naturally-occurring substances.

Rissa_Rae

July 13th, 2006, 04:31 PM

I used to believe that smoking and drinking were things I'd never get into, then one lonely blue moon my mother interested me to mikes hard lemonade...I was never fond of the taste of alcohol before, but on a really cold night or when I'm not endangering anyone else I will on the occasion drink. It's got a nice effect, a very warm and tingly feeling that you rarely feel otherwise, though at the same time if you drink to much you feel like crap in the morning.....so you really have to watch how much you drink and KNOW YOUR LIMITS.
It's like a caffine and/or sugar high...but different, none the less you have to know your own limits.

When it comes to smoking, I've only tried cigs, and they taste horrible (unless you have a flavored one) and the only reason I could see actually picking it up is because it calms you down and leaves you "less stressed". I don't plan to continue such a habit, but I understand why some people do...I just hope that they are respectful of those that do not like smoke.

Neo0tak0n

July 13th, 2006, 04:41 PM

Strawman. Nevermind the fact that that claim is completely unfounded; you're changing the context of what we're speaking in. The literal definition of strength is the amount of maximal isometric contractive force applied. In fact, the way I asserted my point with, "The strongest men of today were made possible through science that wasn't available back then" makes it astounding that you would even misunderstand that. What did you think I meant by, "The strongest of men"? The guys with the best immune system? Once again, there is nobody in our history as strong as the strongest men alive today.

At a time when every human had to be in top shape or they would die, I find it difficult to see how the people of today are on average more strong or athletic. You can be slow, fat, and weak and there is no penalty. How strong are men of today? Well do we build sky scrapers with no more than our arms and some rope? No. Do you hunt elk with a spear? No. And guess what, no "strong" man is about to even try.

You act as though people couldnt body build in the past. Apparently lifting weights is exlusive to the past century, news to me. I guess the great heroes of ancient greece, obviously inspired by real life people, were weaklings? You can't make the claim that any one person of today is stronger than every single person to have existed in the past 500,000 years.

And yes, he who has the greatest immune system is stronger than the other.

Holy Knight

July 13th, 2006, 05:01 PM

Neo, according to that logic, early man was weaker since he had a very low life expectancy due to (though not limited to) diseases of many kinds.

Studies have also shown that the immune system improves with higher levels of fitness, so if early man was so strong why didn't he outlast disease? And if he did, then this thoughness should have been passed on to newer generations of man. Considering the amount of lazyness prevalent thorough our society has only been in full swing for the past two centuries and even moreso these days, I don't think genetics yet had a time to become lax on this subject.

And even if we turn back the clock not two centuries, but two millenia to the time of the first democracy, where things did get easier in a way, that still does not account for such things that you support, namely, that man has become weak. If he truly has, then it can only be in the past few years since that's when technology has come into play. I really can't see where us humans could have become weak in the process earlier than that, and that's if we did.

Loopy

July 13th, 2006, 05:03 PM

At a time when every human had to be in top shape or they would die, I find it difficult to see how the people of today are on average more strong or athletic. You can be slow, fat, and weak and there is no penalty. How strong are men of today? Well do we build sky scrapers with no more than our arms and some rope? No. Do you hunt elk with a spear? No. And guess what, no "strong" man is about to even try.

Correct me if I misconstrue your meaning Reidar.

Reidar isn't talking about the human race as a whole, he's talking only about the strongest of men today, not all of men today. Therefore your complaints about the human race as a whole in the present have no bearing. As for your argument regarding the construction of skyscrapers, let's not forget that many of those who were in charge of building the pyramids and other structures tended to be slaves and died often, and also, the choices of such candidates were wide, children, old people, etc. Also science has led to more efficient, quicker means without the dangerous effects (death, sickness, etc.) that the construction of the buildings of long ago presented.

And the strongest man today would have no problem launching a spear into an elk with ease. Which, I believe, would be Reidar's point.

You act as though people couldnt body build in the past. Apparently lifting weights is exlusive to the past century, news to me. I guess the great heroes of ancient greece, obviously inspired by real life people, were weaklings? You can't make the claim that any one person of today is stronger than every single person to have existed in the past 500,000 years.

Weaklings compared to the strongest men of today, yes. Bodybuilding is just part of it; there's also drugs to enhance the muscular growth of people. Some cases end up going terribly awry but in other cases the results are splendid, almost superhuman. Science is able to make the weakest of men great, not to mention with the methods of communication and information available today, people of all backgrounds can access martial arts and training regimen info and improve their strength, not to mention the already said drugs.

predecessor

July 13th, 2006, 05:58 PM

If I can remember, my grandfather was in his late thirties when he died. But then again, he smoked a cigar and drank a glass of whiskey with every meal, so I guess it was bound to happen.
a cigar and a glass of whiskey at every meal? thats nothing. now if he started the day with whiskey and was drinking a few bottles a day i could understand blaming alcohol.

and if the next metallica album is like st anger i will blame lack of alcohol in his system for it

Reidar

July 13th, 2006, 05:59 PM

At a time when every human had to be in top shape or they would die, I find it difficult to see how the people of today are on average more strong or athletic. You can be slow, fat, and weak and there is no penalty. How strong are men of today? Well do we build sky scrapers with no more than our arms and some rope? No. Do you hunt elk with a spear? No. And guess what, no "strong" man is about to even try.

Loopy gave a perfect explanation of what I've been saying, so I'll make it very simple for you.

No man of our species was capable of doing this in the past:

http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Rapids/4365/drsquat465kg.jpg

That is strength. Throwing a spear is not strength. Throwing a spear is technique and momentum. You could very well make the argument of, "Homo sapiens' natural hunting skills have as a whole declined with the advancement of civilization", which is very different from saying, "We were stronger in the past."

You act as though people couldnt body build in the past. Apparently lifting weights is exlusive to the past century, news to me. I guess the great heroes of ancient greece, obviously inspired by real life people, were weaklings? You can't make the claim that any one person of today is stronger than every single person to have existed in the past 500,000 years.

And yes, he who has the greatest immune system is stronger than the other.

Yes, they were weaklings compared to the strongest men of today. All of them. If you have some sort of document of their endeavors that surpasses the current world record holders, post it right now and contact Guinness post-haste.

There is a physical limit to how far the human body can go without anabolic-inducing supplements and/or drugs.

emotoaster

July 13th, 2006, 06:06 PM

^ God DAMMMMMMMMN thats a lot of weight.....I'm surprised his knees or ankles didn't snap in half.

Bernard_Monsha

July 13th, 2006, 06:53 PM

Allergies, for one. Its not news. Search for the long term effects of anti-biotics on the immune system.

When you're nose gets stuffy, and you pop some pseudofed to clear it up, you are attacking your own self-defense mechanisms.

This is true. The oldest methid for allergies is to eat honey. Not the store bought variety the stuff from a local keeper. They have a toned down version of the allergin in it so your body will naturally toughen itself up.

The problem with antibiotics is they are overused, once in a while to clear infections is fine but it has been used to completely block natural responses or toughned up the pathogens our body tries to fight.

So far as people 15 thousand years ago, anyone who can live though trepanning on numerous ocasions with nothing more than a sharp rock is in obviously good shape.

Reidar

July 13th, 2006, 07:32 PM

In good enough shape to do what they did, obviously yes. In good shape compared to today's athletes, not by a long shot.

Warabit

July 13th, 2006, 08:02 PM

^ God DAMMMMMMMMN thats a lot of weight.....I'm surprised his knees or ankles didn't snap in half.
They probably would if he didnts wrap them tight enough.

Bernard_Monsha

July 13th, 2006, 09:54 PM

In good enough shape to do what they did, obviously yes. In good shape compared to today's athletes, not by a long shot.

No neolythic people could outrun anything we produce today. The Coahuliaticans could carry 70 pound burdens 50 miles a day without pause to eat or drink in some of the harshest climate on the planet. All the rpoid mongers would have dropped dead from dehydration and heat exhaustion. Not even the SEALS or SAS can compare to that kind of mobility and stamina. It is also foolish to assume that people from previous eras are weaker. A knight in full plate armour was in better shape than any pudgey weightlifter or "martial artist" today.

emotoaster

July 13th, 2006, 10:07 PM

True knights HAD to be strong just to where the armor let alone carry food and there weapon(s).

Reidar

July 13th, 2006, 10:12 PM

That's a fallacious argument from incredulity. You're saying that the premise is false only because it has not been proven true. Have the SEALS or the SAS even undergone what you just presented? Any martial artist or lifter? No. They have no need to.

People from previous eras are weaker. Your example of a knight wearing heavy armor is not an instance of muscular strength. That's endurance and the mobility affected by it.

Bernard_Monsha

July 13th, 2006, 10:42 PM

That's a fallacious argument from incredulity. You're saying that the premise is false only because it has not been proven true. Have the SEALS or the SAS even undergone what you just presented? Any martial artist or lifter? No. They have no need to.

Which is why they are weaker, we no longer have to struggle to survive. Even military survival training still depends to some degree on modern equipment. We cannot do these things anymore, so we are fatter and weaker.

People from previous eras are weaker. Your example of a knight wearing heavy armor is not an instance of muscular strength. That's endurance and the mobility affected by it.

No it is an example of endurence and strength. You can look at their bones and see deep pits at the muslcle attachment points. This indicates 2 things

1. High levels of strenuous activity usually dealing with lifting heavy loads repetatively.

2. It occoured over a long period of time.

This is exactly the same kind of thing you would see in body builder with the exeption that they did not cheat and use steroids. In fact I doubt that many of the bodybulders would last as long. There are recorsds of several of the knights of St John of the Hospital storming ramparts and killing people in full plate armour with a 20 pound polearm well into their 80's. They also did acts like this while wounded, eating bad food, unwashed and loaded with lice and other internal parasites. No body builder or martial artist would be able to handle that. Sorry you and Chuck Norris Texas Ranger fail. We are weak and frail compared to those who came before us.

Reidar

July 13th, 2006, 10:55 PM

Which is why they are weaker, we no longer have to struggle to survive. Even military survival training still depends to some degree on modern equipment. We cannot do these things anymore, so we are fatter and weaker.

Again, how do you know this? What anecdote has been made that you can come to this conclusion?

No it is an example of endurence and strength. You can look at their bones and see deep pits at the muslcle attachment points. This indicates 2 things

1. High levels of strenuous activity usually dealing with lifting heavy loads repetatively.

2. It occoured over a long period of time.

That's not strength. Strength is the amount of maximal force outputted via contraction. That's muscle endurance.

This is exactly the same kind of thing you would see in body builder with the exeption that they did not cheat and use steroids. In fact I doubt that many of the bodybulders would last as long. There are recorsds of several of the knights of St John of the Hospital storming ramparts and killing people in full plate armour with a 20 pound polearm well into their 80's. They also did acts like this while wounded, eating bad food, unwashed and loaded with lice and other internal parasites. No body builder or martial artist would be able to handle that. Sorry you and Chuck Norris Texas Ranger fail. We are weak and frail compared to those who came before us.

Argument from incredulity. And that's not strength.

Also, I don't know where bodybuilders fit into this equation. They don't train for strength and have nothing to do with this subject. And Chuck Norris...? What?

Raziel_MGS

July 14th, 2006, 09:02 AM

I Hate All Of You

VSh

July 14th, 2006, 09:54 AM

"Unfortunately", latest researches say that former generations were weaker, smaller and less healthy. Just 2 examples:

Every virus pandemic becomes less and less mortal, and there is no effective anti-virus drug yet.
Even medium size 16-years boy can't put on himself knight plate armors - it's too small. Check it for yourself in the nearest museum.

Regarding alcohol. Again, researchers said that moderate drinking people live longer lives than not drinking. Interesting that human body produces small amount of alcohol by itself. It needs for decreasing adrenaline level in blood. Adrenaline is a hormone that prepares human body for fight. High pulse and frequent breath, red face, blood pressure, high muscles tonus - all those are your adrenaline. Nowadays fighting isn't appropriate method of conflicts resolution, so people don't spend all their adrenaline. Internal alcohol factory is still old and weak and not demanded adrenaline floating in their blood destroys heart and arteries. People that have life full of conflicts and stresses should drink small amount of alcohol for helping to their alcohol factory, but really small, not more 1-2 wine glasses a day, and shouldn't begin this practice in young age as a major of population here - it increases risk of alcoholism.

Regarding nicotine. ... Everything is useful for something. Probably in this case it wasn't found yet.

CeLL_288

July 14th, 2006, 09:54 AM

I Hate All Of YouHaha. Purdue is like the drinking school, but not all colleges are like that.

Mechtech

July 14th, 2006, 10:09 AM

Which is why they are weaker, we no longer have to struggle to survive. Even military survival training still depends to some degree on modern equipment. We cannot do these things anymore, so we are fatter and weaker.

No it is an example of endurence and strength. You can look at their bones and see deep pits at the muslcle attachment points. This indicates 2 things

1. High levels of strenuous activity usually dealing with lifting heavy loads repetatively.

2. It occoured over a long period of time.

This is exactly the same kind of thing you would see in body builder with the exeption that they did not cheat and use steroids. In fact I doubt that many of the bodybulders would last as long. There are recorsds of several of the knights of St John of the Hospital storming ramparts and killing people in full plate armour with a 20 pound polearm well into their 80's. They also did acts like this while wounded, eating bad food, unwashed and loaded with lice and other internal parasites. No body builder or martial artist would be able to handle that. Sorry you and Chuck Norris Texas Ranger fail. We are weak and frail compared to those who came before us.

I think you have some misconceptions there. According to this entry copied from wiki plate armour isn't as heavy as it would appear to be.
Plate armour could have consisted of a helmet, a gorget, pauldrons (or spaulders), couters, vambraces, gauntlets, a cuirass (back and breastplate) with a fauld, tassets and a culet, a chainmail skirt, cuisses, poleyns, greaves and sabatons. While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel. This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier, and the weight is better distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. Modern re-enactment activity has proven it is even possible to swim in armour. That it was necessary to lift a fully armed knight onto his horse with the help of pulleys is a myth originating in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, and has no historical base. Even knights in enormously heavy jousting armour were not winched onto their horses. This type of "sporting" armour was meant only for ceremonial lancing matches and the design had to be extremely thick to prevent severe accidents, such as the one causing the death of King Henry II of France
Additionally several studies have concluded that modern humans are larger, faster and stronger than humans in earlier historical periods. This is primarily due to the fact that a great majority of people enjoy a higher quality diet (compared to dark age standards) during childhood than did people in early time periods.

CeLL_288

July 14th, 2006, 10:57 AM

Additionally several studies have concluded that modern humans are larger, faster and stronger than humans in earlier historical periods. This is primarily due to the fact that a great majority of people enjoy a higher quality diet (compared to dark age standards) during childhood than did people in early time periods.It's not only due to diet, though. Studies have found that humans are getting taller with each generation, due at least in part to genetics. Of course, studies are also showing that we're being born with less testosterone each generation, so I guess it kind of evens out.

EDIT: I'll find the book with those two studies in it when I get home.

Rain

July 14th, 2006, 07:37 PM

Does physical strength have any sort of bearing on one's immune system? Do they coincide? Does physical power alone mean impeccable immune system? Of course, we're talking through natural, and only natural, means.

If, in fact, the strongest man can truly be the strongest man without needing to have a strong immune system to defend himself against diseases, viruses and the like, wouldn't he be physically strong but bodily weak (suppressed immune system)? A "strong" man who gets sick constantly, no less.

I'd like to think that the above mentioned wouldn't be your ideal representation of strength.

Studies have found that humans are getting taller with each generation, due at least in part to genetics.

What does height have to do with anything? Tall =/= Strong. Wasn't Bruce Lee considered to be relatively short at 5'7"? I dare say it was due to his Asian genes, but that's not the point. The point is that he could sure as hell beat the bejeezus out of a shitload of people.

Well, what's the conclusion, you say? Here it is: height and strength aren't in any way correlated. So, I can't even begin to comprehend the purpose of your mentioning that statistical analysis.

Of course, studies are also showing that we're being born with less testosterone each generation, so I guess it kind of evens out.

So...this is where man's finest manufactured Anabolic-androgenic steroids come in, eh? :lol:

Ain't it just grand? Oh, how I love mankind.

Reidar

July 14th, 2006, 11:09 PM

Does physical strength have any sort of bearing on one's immune system? Do they coincide? Does physical power alone mean impeccable immune system? Of course, we're talking through natural, and only natural, means.

If, in fact, the strongest man can truly be the strongest man without needing to have a strong immune system to defend himself against diseases, viruses and the like, wouldn't he be physically strong but bodily weak (suppressed immune system)? A "strong" man who gets sick constantly, no less.

The amount of calories and vitamins a professional weightlifter ingests for his sport puts his immune system far, far above the average person. I'm not sure what you mean by "natural", though. Everything you consume is grown by unnatural means. Farming isn't a natural phenomenon.

What does height have to do with anything? Tall =/= Strong. Wasn't Bruce Lee considered to be relatively short at 5'7"? I dare say it was due to his Asian genes, but that's not the point. The point is that he could sure as hell beat the bejeezus out of a shitload of people.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. He was a 130 lb actor with a few months of Wing Chun under his belt and no consistent fight record.

Rain

July 14th, 2006, 11:26 PM

The amount of calories and vitamins a professional weightlifter ingests for his sport puts his immune system far, far above the average person. I'm not sure what you mean by "natural", though. Everything you consume is grown by unnatural means. Farming isn't a natural phenomenon.

Then disregard my previous post about suppressed immune systems. Well, I was talking more along the lines of additional supplements of sorts that weightlifters would consume on a regular basis.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. He was a 130 lb actor with a few months of Wing Chun under his belt and no consistent fight record.

Well, excuse me for thinking that he could beat people up. I wasn't implying that he was the "strongest" man or anything. (I know you didn't imply that I was implying that) I was merely using him as an example to show that height isn't correlated to strength. I guess I could've used a better example but this is totally not my area of expertise. Y'know?

Reidar

July 14th, 2006, 11:36 PM

The misconceptions of Bruce Lee is just a peeve of mine. Carry on. Kill each other.

Bernard_Monsha

July 14th, 2006, 11:46 PM

I think you have some misconceptions there. According to this entry copied from wiki plate armour isn't as heavy as it would appear to be.

Additionally several studies have concluded that modern humans are larger, faster and stronger than humans in earlier historical periods. This is primarily due to the fact that a great majority of people enjoy a higher quality diet (compared to dark age standards) during childhood than did people in early time periods.

Under the plate you had chain mail, then a leather padded jerkin, then your normal clothes usually woven from wool. If you wanted to go the extra mile of protection you would put a great helm over your basinet. Trusting Wiki is like takeing what you see on the History Channel verbatim. Studies have shown that most people who say they site studies that are not specific or presented do not exist. The only thing you can quantify in your assertion is that people have gotten taller because Wheat has become a more prolific staple.

Reidar

July 14th, 2006, 11:48 PM

I was disagreeing with Bernard earlier, but Wikipedia is to a real encyclopedia as Taco Bell is to Mexican food.

Rain

July 14th, 2006, 11:50 PM

Mhm. I wonder who's "each other."

We could all kill ourselves by drinkin' and smokin', even. No need for murderers, serial killers or criminals. They're all the same, anyway.

Reidar

July 14th, 2006, 11:56 PM

Crime lowers testosterone production.

Rain

July 15th, 2006, 12:02 AM

Oh god no. Really? Since when!?

Tidusauron12

July 15th, 2006, 12:03 AM

Seriously, is that true?

Reidar

July 15th, 2006, 12:05 AM

No, but I couldn't help myself.

Rain

July 15th, 2006, 12:13 AM

Seriously, is that true?

How could you even think that what he said was in the least bit factual?

(I'm not sure if you could tell, but I was bein' sarcastic in my previous "O RLY" post.)

CrossboneGundam

July 15th, 2006, 12:27 AM

Again, how do you know this? What anecdote has been made that you can come to this conclusion?

Clearly you're capable of surviving, nay, thriving without any modern technology or training, so obviously Bernard's totally out of line here.

So when are you going to go prove him wrong by going out into the wilds with only the clothes on your back and your innate human skill at successfully making effective tools without training or knowledge of how to do so?

Reidar

July 15th, 2006, 12:29 AM

Clearly you're capable of surviving, nay, thriving with only stone-age tools and skills in the open wilderness, so obviously Bernard's totally out of line here.

Assuming that that's sarcasm: you indeed are, with the aforementioned skills.

Rain

July 15th, 2006, 12:54 AM

Listen... I'm a loser ok? I'm just a geek...

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Oh, and, if you're a "geek," wouldn't you be intellectually smart enough to not question that crime doesn't actually lower testosterone production?

Oh my god, I am so confused.

MagicianCamille

July 15th, 2006, 12:57 AM

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Oh, and, if you're a "geek," wouldn't you be intellectually smart enough to not question that crime doesn't actually lower testosterone production?

Oh my god, I am so confused.

I think you're confusing geeks with nerds.

Tidusauron12

July 15th, 2006, 01:02 AM

I think you're confusing geeks with nerds.

Hey... did you just call me a nerd!?

Anyways.. back on topic.

My grandad got throat cancer from his many years of smoking, and they had to use all this radiation treament on his throat. That scared the hell out of me because he permanently lost his voice and he was barfing all over the place when ever I saw him. I was 6 back then, and I asked my dad why he smoked if that was going to happen to him too and he said: "I don't know... smoking just feels good." Well... that's why I've been really against smoking for a long time now. (Not that me and my grandad were close... but I witnessed his sickness quite fully.)

Spadesy

July 15th, 2006, 06:46 PM

Nicotine gives you a buzz and so does alchohol. I only use alchohol to cure any social anxieties I could have. It makes conversation easier and funner. That's it.

Spadesy

July 15th, 2006, 07:22 PM

LostCause

July 16th, 2006, 04:34 AM

"

Regarding nicotine. ... Everything is useful for something. Probably in this case it wasn't found yet.

It was. Nicotine is a pesticide. It naturally occurs in a plant as a means to protect it from insects.
Apparently there are some bugs called 'plant lice' or something. If you want to get rid of them, soak 2 sigaretts in water for some time and then spray water on the affected plant. Plant lives, bugs die.

Spadesy

July 16th, 2006, 06:33 AM

Nicotine also reduces the chance of getting Parkinson's I read on wiki. Although this can be done by getting a nic-fix from something else besides smoking.

predecessor

July 16th, 2006, 08:24 AM

Nicotine also reduces the chance of getting Parkinson's I read on wiki. Although this can be done by getting a nic-fix from something else besides smoking.
and THC in weed has been proven in a few newer studies to promote the growth of healthy brain cells. most things have more than the recreational value.

blackknight

July 16th, 2006, 09:26 AM

Getting back to the original topic-

I don't smoke. Never have, never will. I don't mind when people around me smoke, although I do have problems after awhile, such as when somebody was smoking a cigar while I was trying to eat lunch. I was fine for a few minutes, after that it was torture.

I support the legalization of marijuana in the US, not because I smoke or intend to smoke it, but because I don't see it as being any worse than a cigarette.

I do drink alcohol in moderation. I am also limited in what I enjoy. I despise most alcohlic drinks, such as beer, wine, brandy, whiskey, and tequlila. I do enjoy vodka, saki, and grappa, but I'll limit myself to two shots on the outside, and I rarely drink anyway. This will probably change when I turn 21, since I'll be able to buy my own booze, but I still won't drink excessively. I see people with hangovers and have no wish to experience that.

predecessor

July 16th, 2006, 10:12 AM

but I still won't drink excessively. I see people with hangovers and have no wish to experience that.
hangover bad >_< make head hurt. i'll prolly excess drink a little if i go to mexico next year. but i'm hoping i don't get hangover. even though all it takes is a half hour of puking, some sleep, and i'm fine by 11 in the morning. but that half hour sucks. and i agree with legalization although the goverment will take over growing and all the chemicals that american companies use for growing and put in the tobacco will be put in the weed. and chemicals used during growing are the worst. De-criminalization is the way to go

CrossboneGundam

July 16th, 2006, 10:50 AM

and THC in weed has been proven in a few newer studies to promote the growth of healthy brain cells. most things have more than the recreational value.

So you'll have no trouble directing us to the overwhelming amount of research data that "proves" this statement, then, right?

predecessor

July 16th, 2006, 01:57 PM

So you'll have no trouble directing us to the overwhelming amount of research data that "proves" this statement, then, right?
lets see if i can find them. didn't say it was overwhelming****hole* i saw them a few months*wow was i ever off in time* ago but i'll gimme a few days to see if i can dig them up

edit. wow that was quick

http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2005-3/issue9/ne-mj.html

and some on the studies of thc on brain tumours
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6947
http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/

GreatNekoKoneko

July 16th, 2006, 02:02 PM

... man. people on this thread need a drink and a good smoke.

predecessor

July 16th, 2006, 02:06 PM

... man. people on this thread need a drink and a good smoke.
in a few months for me. happy 19th birthday in november for me

CrossboneGundam

July 16th, 2006, 02:14 PM

lets see if i can find them. didn't say it was overwhelming****hole* i saw them a couple years ago but i'll gimme a few days to see if i can dig them up

edit. wow that was quick

http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2005-3/issue9/ne-mj.html

and some on the studies of thc on brain tumours
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6947
http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/

Since you're obviously not familiar with the scientific method...
I didn't say you said it was overwhelming. I said overwhelming because that's the kind of evidence you need to say that something is scientifically "proven."

Your first link is a single study in mice that suggests (their words, as would be proper for any scientists,) a compound similar to chemicals found in Marijuana promoted brain cell growth. That's a small step above "hypothesis," and any scientist (including the authors of the study, which isn't even even being provided, here,) would tell you that this requires much more research to determine a remotely valid conclusion.

The second two links are, at first glance, irrelevent. However, notice that they talk about marijuana use helping to fight brain cancer. In case you didn't notice, cancer is out of control cellular growth. Meaning the Marijuana in these cases is helping to kill brain cells.

Of course, both of those links are from biased political organizations, not legitimate scientific sources.

predecessor

July 16th, 2006, 02:22 PM

Since you're obviously not familiar with the scientific method...
I didn't say you said it was overwhelming. I said overwhelming because that's the kind of evidence you need to say that something is scientifically "proven."

Your first link is a single study in mice that suggests (their words, as would be proper for any scientists,) a compound similar to chemicals found in Marijuana promoted brain cell growth. That's a small step above "hypothesis," and any scientist (including the authors of the study, which isn't even even being provided, here,) would tell you that this requires much more research to determine a remotely valid conclusion.

The second two links are, at first glance, irrelevent. However, notice that they talk about marijuana use helping to fight brain cancer. In case you didn't notice, cancer is out of control cellular growth. Meaning the Marijuana in these cases is helping to kill brain cells.

Of course, both of those links are from biased political organizations, not legitimate scientific sources.
fine then. wait a year or two for possible human studies if you want your "Overwhelming" proof. and how come i'm not allowed to say proven when the surgen general releases dozens of articles and reports about how "smoking is bad" and most of the studies are inconclusive and done only on rodents and call it the truth?

the second two links are not that irrevelant. its a medical use right? or is shrinking tumours not very medical to you? biased political organizations? what the hell? they were sitting there in google. you know the search engine everyone is always telling people to use. would you prefer copies of the article on stopcancer.com or cannabis culture.com? i picked those two for a reason. so i could avoid a stupid statement like that. and people wonder why i don't ****ing speak out about stuff more

maybe i should say this now but please don't start an argument with me. i am not in the mood for arguments anymore

GreatNekoKoneko

July 16th, 2006, 02:35 PM

in a few months for me. happy 19th birthday in november for me

... good for ya man. if i knew where you lived, i'd have bought you a drink and given you a loosey.

Spadesy

July 16th, 2006, 03:22 PM

What's interesting, to me, is that a lot of people will have a fit if you smoke near them or if they see you smoking, and refuse to smoke. But it seems, the same kind of people don't mind indulging in alchohol.

Lesse, alchohol kills brain cells, is classified as a poison, screws with your liver, alters your judgement (yes, even my balls seemed to have grown bigger after some Jonnie Walker)...and other problems I'm sure which I haven't mentioned.

I say if you're gonna do one, you might as well do the other.

Rain

July 16th, 2006, 09:25 PM

What's interesting, to me, is that a lot of people will have a fit if you smoke near them or if they see you smoking, and refuse to smoke. But it seems, the same kind of people don't mind indulging in alchohol.

So, you're saying that it's "wrong" to not want to be subjected to second-hand smoke and in turn, end up reeking of cigarette smoke and ash? Which is putrid and repugnant, by the way.

Lesse, alchohol kills brain cells, is classified as a poison, screws with your liver, alters your judgement (yes, even my balls seemed to have grown bigger after some Jonnie Walker)...and other problems I'm sure which I haven't mentioned.

Now you're saying that alcohol abuse is worse than tobacco abuse?

I say if you're gonna do one, you might as well do the other.

I say if you're gonna do one or the other, indulge yourself in alcohol.

MagicianCamille

July 16th, 2006, 09:27 PM

I say if you're gonna do one, you might as well do the other.

I say that's quite possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Rain

July 16th, 2006, 09:29 PM

I say that's quite possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

ZING! Is this a ZING moment?

predecessor

July 16th, 2006, 09:35 PM

So, you're saying that it's "wrong" to not want to be subjected to second-hand smoke and in turn, end up reeking of cigarette smoke and ash? Which is putrid and repugnant, by the way.

thats the only part of seconed hand smoke stuff i belive. i actually like the smell of smoke but nothing is worse than stale smoke thats seeped into your clothes. bleagh

Bernard_Monsha

July 16th, 2006, 10:00 PM

fine then. wait a year or two for possible human studies if you want your "Overwhelming" proof. and how come i'm not allowed to say proven when the surgen general releases dozens of articles and reports about how "smoking is bad" and most of the studies are inconclusive and done only on rodents and call it the truth?

the second two links are not that irrevelant. its a medical use right? or is shrinking tumours not very medical to you? biased political organizations? what the hell? they were sitting there in google. you know the search engine everyone is always telling people to use. would you prefer copies of the article on stopcancer.com or cannabis culture.com? i picked those two for a reason. so i could avoid a stupid statement like that. and people wonder why i don't ****ing speak out about stuff more

maybe i should say this now but please don't start an argument with me. i am not in the mood for arguments anymore

It hasd also been shown to cause schitzophrenia in those predisposed to it and psycosis in those who already have it. Not to mention it is one of the rare plants that sucks up dangerous levels of heavy metals. You may as well huff mercury vapour.

If you can't make an argument without calling someone an ******* don't make the argument. This thread is wilding spinning out of control and will be locked unless it straitens up.

Leader Desslock

July 16th, 2006, 10:00 PM

What's interesting, to me, is that a lot of people will have a fit if you smoke near them or if they see you smoking, and refuse to smoke. But it seems, the same kind of people don't mind indulging in alchohol.
Well, there's a rather obvious difference, I'd say:

When I'm in a room with a group of people who are drinking around me, I don't come home smelling like alcohol.

As any non-smoker can tell you, if I spend the same amount of time surrounded by a roomful of smokers, I'll be able to smell the smoke on me when I leave. I'll be able to smell it on my clothes the next day, and until I wash my hair, I'll be able to smell the smoke in my hair. Whenever I travel through Las Vegas, I have to bring a separate plastic bag in which to put the clothes I've worn walking through the casino (to check in and out), simply because the smell of smoke is so strong on those clothes that they'll make everything in the suitcase smell like smoke if they're not segregated.

If having somebody smoke next to me didn't leave me smelling like smoke myself, I might be just as tolerant of public smokers as I am of public drinking. But that's not the case.

Let's take an example of comparably rude behaviour to put this in perspective. Suppose you sit down on a bus. The person in the seat next to you is tremendously flatulent. They fart often, and though their farts are silent, their aroma is near eye-watering. Though you don't say anything, the person is aware that you can smell their farts and that you are not enjoying the experience. yet they keep farting anyway.

Now - is there anyone here who doesn't think the flatulent seatmate's behaviour is rude and socially unacceptable? Is there anyone here who really thinks that the person sitting next to such flatulence would be in the wrong if they asked the person to stop farting? No?

Then here's the perspective: After sitting on the bus next to this person farting for 30 minutes, your clothes will NOT smell like this person's farts. If the same person had been smoking instead of farting, the smell from the smoke would be all through your hair and clothes, guaranteed. And - this goes without saying - there are no health risks associated with exposure to secondhand flatulence.

I think that public smoking is no more polite than obvious public flatulence. In fact, it's arguably more rude.

Rain

July 16th, 2006, 10:01 PM

thats the only part of seconed hand smoke stuff i belive. i actually like the smell of smoke but nothing is worse than stale smoke thats seeped into your clothes. bleagh

Okay.

You like the smell of smoke? Fine. You like to smoke? Fine. You smoking near or around non-smokers who don't wish to smell like smoke? Not fine.

predecessor

July 16th, 2006, 10:45 PM

Okay.

You like the smell of smoke? Fine. You like to smoke? Fine. You smoking near or around non-smokers who don't wish to smell like smoke? Not fine.
what does that have to do with what i said. i was agreeing with you........

and bernard i wasn't really arguing. i'm really quite sick of arguing about everything.

MagicianCamille

July 16th, 2006, 10:47 PM

what does that have to do with what i said. i was agreeing with you........

It has a lot to do with what you said, you're just too hopped up to realize it. :lol:

predecessor

July 16th, 2006, 10:48 PM

It has a lot to do with what you said, you're just too hopped up to realize it. :lol:
hopped up on what? i've only ever drank and the last time was over a year ago.....

and another one to bernard. most drug users will tell you if you are mentally ill or are prediposed to mental illness you are playing with a loaded gun. you never know when your gonna get the chamber with the bullet

*damn editing* and Desslock. i'm not disagreeing on the smoke soaking into clothes thing. Farts can get absorbed by clothing. and god is it ever nasty. luckly i don't run into the public farters very often

Rain

July 16th, 2006, 10:59 PM

what does that have to do with what i said. i was agreeing with you........

It has everything to do with what you said.

and bernard i wasn't really arguing. i'm really quite sick of arguing about everything.

Y'know, if you don't want to argue, don't start up a debate about controversial issues or points which you don't think you'll be able support/defend.

predecessor

July 16th, 2006, 11:01 PM

It has everything to do with what you said.

Y'know, if you don't want to argue, don't start up a debate about controversial issues or points which you don't think you'll be able support/defend.
i didn't start it. some one asked for support to my statement i gave a link it wasn't good enough. thats that. there nothing more to it. i didn't start a damn thing. and right now your starting something and i just do not want to argue in anyway right now

and its just your statement sounded like you were accusing me of smoking around people. it most likely wasn't meant like that however. so drop that misunderstanding

Spadesy

July 17th, 2006, 03:49 AM

So, you're saying that it's "wrong" to not want to be subjected to second-hand smoke and in turn, end up reeking of cigarette smoke and ash? Which is putrid and repugnant, by the way.

Now you're saying that alcohol abuse is worse than tobacco abuse?

I say if you're gonna do one or the other, indulge yourself in alcohol.

To each his or her own.

But really, alchohol messes with your nerves, beats up your liver and kills brain cells. It can also impair your judgement, give you a hangover and other things. At worst, smoking can give you lung cancer and reduce your stamina. As for the smell...I dunno. Nobody's ever had a problem with me doing it, many are surprised I even light up.

MagicianCamille

July 17th, 2006, 04:19 AM

To each his or her own

Yeah but your own is incredibly WRONG.

But really, alchohol messes with your nerves, beats up your liver and kills brain cells. It can also impair your judgement, give you a hangover and other things. At worst, smoking can give you lung cancer and reduce your stamina.

Right, so saying "If you're going to **** up your liver you might as well kill your lungs also" doesn't make sense. Liver **** and lung **** are two different types of ****. Having one doesn't mean you should shoot for the other.

Ya know?

-Nya

The Million Dollar Prons

July 17th, 2006, 04:59 AM

To each his or her own.

But really, alchohol messes with your nerves, beats up your liver and kills brain cells. It can also impair your judgement, give you a hangover and other things. At worst, smoking can give you lung cancer and reduce your stamina. As for the smell...I dunno. Nobody's ever had a problem with me doing it, many are surprised I even light up.

Yeah but let's face it.

Drunks do the best stuff, ever. (http://tuckermax.com/)

Loopy

July 17th, 2006, 05:57 AM

To each his or her own.

But really, alchohol messes with your nerves, beats up your liver and kills brain cells. It can also impair your judgement, give you a hangover and other things. At worst, smoking can give you lung cancer and reduce your stamina. As for the smell...I dunno. Nobody's ever had a problem with me doing it, many are surprised I even light up.

Only if you get pissed drunk. Not so with the wonders of smoking. Wonders of smoking come natural.

riceavenger

July 17th, 2006, 07:53 PM

LostCause

July 17th, 2006, 09:22 PM

Reidar

July 17th, 2006, 09:47 PM

Human nature already covers that. His point still stands.

Warabit

July 17th, 2006, 10:01 PM

LostCause

July 17th, 2006, 11:23 PM

Human nature already covers that. His point still stands.
No. Because our 'civility' gets in the way of our human nature more often than not. Alcohol removes the pretences. Not saying its a good thing.
As for bragging, people brag about all sorts of staff: how many partners they have been with, how many shots they can drink before they can't stand anymore, how many punches they can take before they are knocked out, what level of game they can get to before losing their 'lives'. It depends what you are into.

Reidar

July 18th, 2006, 12:10 AM

No. Because our 'civility' gets in the way of our human nature more often than not. Alcohol removes the pretences. Not saying its a good thing.

You can make that same argument about caffeine from the aforementioned soda example. Caffeine is a drug.

Also, "our" does not reference a single entity. Don't speak as if it is such.

Rain

July 18th, 2006, 12:15 AM

No. Because our 'civility' gets in the way of our human nature more often than not.

So, you're saying we act civil and cordial in the absence of alcohol because we're subliminally trying to prevent our human nature from acting out?

Alcohol removes the pretences. Not saying its a good thing.

Now you're saying we "pretend," consciously or not, to be whoever we are while sober, again, in the absence of alcohol.

From your above statement, I can infer either of two things:

1) You think alcohol is bad because it removes these so-called "pretenses" or
2) You think that these "pretenses" are "good" and hence, removing them through the use of alcohol is "bad"

As for bragging, people brag about all sorts of staff: how many partners they have been with, how many shots they can drink before they can't stand anymore, how many punches they can take before they are knocked out, what level of game they can get to before losing their 'lives'. It depends what you are into.

Okay, this has anything to do with the subject at hand because...

LostCause

July 18th, 2006, 12:16 AM

You can make that same argument about caffeine from the aforementioned soda example. Caffeine is a drug.
Also, "our" does not reference a single entity. Don't speak as if it is such.
The term "brag" exists in real life. Thank you for clarifying this.
No. Because all drugs and their effects are not equal.
You are not seriosly comparing soda and cofe to alcohol?

Reidar

July 18th, 2006, 12:58 AM

No. Because all drugs and their effects are not equal.
You are not seriosly comparing soda and cofe to alcohol?

I never said that they were equal, nor is that of any relevance whatsoever. You're using a logical fallacy in regards to one drug affecting somebody's judgement but not the other, regardless as to the level of impairment by either.

And of course I'm comparing caffeine to alcohol. They're both CNS stimulants. Also, by saying "all drugs are not equal", you yourself are consequently comparing the two as well.

LostCause

July 18th, 2006, 02:02 AM

So, you're saying we act civil and cordial in the absence of alcohol because we're subliminally trying to prevent our human nature from acting out?

Now you're saying we "pretend," consciously or not, to be whoever we are while sober, again, in the absence of alcohol.

From your above statement, I can infer either of two things:

1) You think alcohol is bad because it removes these so-called "pretenses" or
2) You think that these "pretenses" are "good" and hence, removing them through the use of alcohol is "bad"

Okay, this has anything to do with the subject at hand because...
Yes, I am saying what you think I am saying. Excessive use of alcohol is bad; for its strips us of acquired 'civility', common sense, proper judgement etc.
As for the bragging thing, riceavenger was wondering why drunks brag. So I just pointed out that they are hardly the only ones.

LostCause

July 18th, 2006, 02:04 AM

I never said that they were equal, nor is that of any relevance whatsoever. You're using a logical fallacy in regards to one drug affecting somebody's judgement but not the other, regardless as to the level of impairment by either.

And of course I'm comparing caffeine to alcohol. They're both CNS stimulants. Also, by saying "all drugs are not equal", you yourself are consequently comparing the two as well.
I am sorry but I have no idea where are you going with this.

Reidar

July 18th, 2006, 02:17 AM

I am sorry but I have no idea where are you going with this.

It doesn't make sense to dismiss soda in the manner that you did when caffeine is a CNS altering drug in the same manner that alcohol is -- just not to the same degree. It also doesn't make sense to make a generalization of "our civility gets in the way of our human nature more often than not" given that it depends entirely on the human edification and control of that individual.

Spadesy

July 18th, 2006, 03:00 AM

Yeah but your own is incredibly WRONG.

Right, so saying "If you're going to **** up your liver you might as well kill your lungs also" doesn't make sense. Liver **** and lung **** are two different types of ****. Having one doesn't mean you should shoot for the other.

Ya know?

-Nya

*Yawn* Yeah, whatever. Judging from the tone of your posts, it looks like you're trying to pWn me or something. Don't care. Life's too short to worry about cancer when something as natural as the sun has the potential to give you cancer.

LostCause

July 18th, 2006, 03:24 AM

It doesn't make sense to dismiss soda in the manner that you did when caffeine is a CNS altering drug in the same manner that alcohol is -- just not to the same degree. It also doesn't make sense to make a generalization of "our civility gets in the way of our human nature more often than not" given that it depends entirely on the human edification and control of that individual.
Yes, they are both CNS altering drugs. But for me the degree to which they alter your behaviour makes all the difference in the world. Then there is always the degree to which they can addict the user.
Actually, you are right about the 'civility'. People can be complete (insert the descriptive of your choice) without alcohol. Its just that alcohol does make the transition:
a)easier [for people with less self control] and
b)possible [for folks with plenty of self restrain or shy people]
Again, I am talking about excessive drinking here.

MagicianCamille

July 18th, 2006, 04:25 AM

*Yawn* Yeah, whatever.

Common sense get away from me!

Judging from the tone of your posts, it looks like you're trying to pWn me or something.

What tone? This is the internet. I was merely explaining why what you think is wrong, and what I think is right.

Don't care. Life's too short to worry about cancer when something as natural as the sun has the potential to give you cancer.

Indeed. But life is also too long to go through it with no liver.

Rain

July 18th, 2006, 04:26 AM

Excessive use of alcohol is bad; for its strips us of acquired 'civility', common sense, proper judgement etc.

Moderate use of alcohol is not bad, then, I take it?

Even so, there are countless people who lack this "acquired civility" even without abusing alcohol. It has become a commonplace phenomenon.

Actually, you are right about the 'civility'. People can be complete (insert the descriptive of your choice) without alcohol.

Exactly my point.

Raziel_MGS

July 18th, 2006, 07:12 AM

Reidar

July 18th, 2006, 08:41 AM

you children are too young to drink anyways so why argue on the internet, again I have to refer to my favorite quote "Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even if you win you still are retarded".

A debate is a debate. Only special Olympians think that a computer format somehow changes what arguing is.

Yes, they are both CNS altering drugs. But for me the degree to which they alter your behaviour makes all the difference in the world. Then there is always the degree to which they can addict the user.

It doesn't because because people are affected differently by varying degrees of each. Somebody can respond incredibly easily to caffeine but not alcohol.

riceavenger

July 18th, 2006, 12:38 PM

Yes, they are both CNS altering drugs. But for me the degree to which they alter your behaviour makes all the difference in the world. Then there is always the degree to which they can addict the user.
Actually, you are right about the 'civility'. People can be complete (insert the descriptive of your choice) without alcohol. Its just that alcohol does make the transition:
a)easier [for people with less self control] and
b)possible [for folks with plenty of self restrain or shy people]
Again, I am talking about excessive drinking here.

When I think "moderate" amounts of drinking I'm thinking of having a glass of wine over steak of whatever, not downing a keg of beer at some frat party and the bragging about how you had to get your stomach pumped right after that.

Alcohol is a much of a recreational drug as any of the substances most commonly thought of as drugs. From what you said, it seems like people drink to basically alter their conciousness so they find more enjoyment in whatever they are doing. I don't how see how this is any different from shooting up heroin at some party.

Raziel_MGS

July 18th, 2006, 01:01 PM

hmm, it seems you haeven't drank or experienced herioine so its a giant difference let me tell you. I have drank all differnet amounts at parties and drugs have different effects than alcohol, it is all how you choose, but heroine is much more addicitive than drinking...

Cless158

July 18th, 2006, 02:11 PM

i have this friend and everytime he drinks, he gets into a fight (usually starts it himself, with little or no provocation). if i was like that i would quit drinking. hes not even an alcoholic, he just turned 16 and cant handle the drink. that is the kind of drunk i dont like. all other types, even those who cry, vomit, pass out etc are fine by me :)

as for smoking, i dont mind it and i agree with the person/people who say you shouldnt refuse to associate with people because of their habits.

LostCause

July 18th, 2006, 04:39 PM

you children are too young to drink anyways so why argue on the internet, again I have to refer to my favorite quote "Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even if you win you still are retarded".
???
I might be older than you for all you know

By riceavenger From what you said, it seems like people drink to basically alter their conciousness so they find more enjoyment in whatever they are doing. I don't how see how this is any different from shooting up heroin at some party.

That may not be their reason, but drink enough and thats the end result.(enjoyment is questionable)
I have no knowledge of hard drugs and culture that surrounds them, so I won't speak on the matter.

By Reidar : It doesn't because because people are affected differently by varying degrees of each. Somebody can respond incredibly easily to caffeine but not alcohol.

That might be true, but I have yet to hear of a person whose life was wrecked by caffeine. Alcohol is another matter.

Reidar

July 18th, 2006, 05:00 PM

That might be true, but I have yet to hear of a person whose life was wrecked by caffeine. Alcohol is another matter.

It's not another matter. Excess caffeine has been proven to cause osteoporosis, birth defects, miscarriages, infertility, cancers, high blood pressure, premenstrual syndrome, ulcers, fibrocystic breast disease, and heart disease. Caffeine also causes addiction and dependence.

Perperikon010

July 18th, 2006, 05:02 PM

I used to think that I have something against drinking. Then I realized what I really didn't like about alcohol is the culture surrounding it. I think anyone who is or has attended college will know what I am talking about. How many times have you had to listen to people brag about how much they had to drink last night? I remember riding home on a train from a Emperor concert last Thursday and sitting next to a group of high schoolers. 90% of the time they were either talking about drinking or how to get alcohol. Gimmie a break. Would you talk to a person about all the Pepsi you had last night? Of course not. Why would you do it with alcohol then?

True, these are the types of conversations that truly make me doubt the theory of evolution insofar as the brain is concerned...

On topic: I think everyone on this forum is aware of the dangers of alcohol, nicotine and drugs. Whether people consume one or the other is their choice. As long as it does not infringe on anyone's rights, they are free to do it as much or as little as they like and the others should stop *****ing about it. We don't nag suicides. Have a little respect for the future departed! ^_^ Also, smoking used to play a significant role in human culture and interaction in the past. Non-smokers were not very vocal in their aversion to it. Now that it’s less mainstream we have people complaining left and right. Think about it.

Off topic: We need everyone to take a Logic and Fundamentals of Reading class. We also need brownies in order to attempt to kill ourselves through hyperglycemia.

LostCause

July 18th, 2006, 05:05 PM

It's not another matter. Excess caffeine has been proven to cause osteoporosis, birth defects, miscarriages, infertility, cancers, high blood pressure, premenstrual syndrome, ulcers, fibrocystic breast disease, and heart disease. Caffeine also causes addiction.
I actually didn't know that about caffeine.
The level of addiction is certainly different though.
And while excessive drinking can inflict all kinds of health problems, alcohol can wreck your life on the whole different level. And you don't even have to be the one doing the drinking.

Reidar

July 18th, 2006, 05:12 PM

I actually didn't know that about caffeine.
The level of addiction is certainly different though.

The fact that many are unaware of the health risks associated with it compensates accordingly. You're less likely to moderate your soda drinking than you are with beer.

And while excessive drinking can inflict all kinds of health problems, alcohol can wreck your life on the whole different level. And you don't even have to be the one doing the drinking.

A whole different level from cancer and heart disease? Like what?

LostCause

July 18th, 2006, 05:29 PM

A whole different level from cancer and heart disease? Like what?

Broken families, people killed by drunk drivers, neglected children of alcoholics, violence and abuse caused by drunks, life savings of the family wasted by 1 drinking spouse, birth defects in children caused by alcoholism of the mother/father..........
Do I need to go on?

Reidar

July 18th, 2006, 05:45 PM

Broken families, people killed by drunk drivers, neglected children of alcoholics, violence and abuse caused by drunks, life savings of the family wasted by 1 drinking spouse, birth defects in children caused by alcoholism of the mother/father..........
Do I need to go on?

You do. Those are on a whole different level from death by cancer, heart disease, and birth defection how?

And the bolded is already a consequence of caffeine.

Leader Desslock

July 18th, 2006, 05:50 PM

LostCause

July 18th, 2006, 05:58 PM

You do. Those are on a whole different level from death by cancer, heart disease, and birth defection how?

And the bolded is already a consequence of caffeine.
Because these things can affect you even though you have never had a drink yourself. Apart from birth defection, you would need to drink and smoke to increase your chances of heart desease and cancer. Not saying those don't occur without substance abuse. Thats what I meant by different.

Reidar

July 18th, 2006, 06:12 PM

The amount of misinformation in this thread has exceeded my ability to correct it. This is amazing. Is this what young people actually think nowadays? More to the point, is this HOW young people actually think nowadays? It sounds like AN's own version of Reefer Madness, with a broader focus. If AN still had clubs, I'd recommend some of you form a temperance league. This is too funny.

You can just correct me, then.

Because these things can affect you even though you have never had a drink yourself. Apart from birth defection, you would need to drink and smoke to increase your chances of heart desease and cancer. Not saying those don't occur without substance abuse. Thats what I meant by different.

Sense not made. Your sibling dying from cancer doesn't affect you?

LostCause

July 18th, 2006, 06:29 PM

Sense not made. Your sibling dying from cancer doesn't affect you?

I was just saying that caffeine does not produce same social effects as excessive drinking. Thats why I found it strange to compare them in the first place, but I guess you can compare their effects on the human body.

Leader Desslock

July 18th, 2006, 07:04 PM

You can just correct me, then.
I gave up even trying to figure out your perspective halfway through the thread. How about this one for starters:

"Excess caffeine has been proven to cause ... premenstrual syndrome..."

I don't even know where you're getting that one. PMS is caused by a wonderful hormonal cocktail of hormones and neurotransmitters during a specific portion of a woman's cycle. The symptoms of PMS do not correspond to the effects of caffeine on the human body. Caffeine is not a cause of PMS.

The increased risk of miscarriages appears above a reasonable intake level (3 Cups/day), but the birth defects you're talking about require one or two pots of coffee per day. Certainly a concern for the heaviest of coffee drinkers, but it's hardly the sort of thing that would make me slap a cup of tea or bar of chocolate from a pregnant woman's hand.

The danger of caffeine exposure is nothing compared to the dangerous environmental levels of dihydrogen monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/) in this country.

I dunno quite how to categorize your posts in this thread. You sound like you get your medical knowledge from fitness mags or something - but if that's the case, I'd still expect you to better informed (or less MISinformed). The last guy I talked with that sounded like you was a Raw Foodist who liked to tell me that Cooked Food Is Poison.

Doesn't matter to me, really - believe what you want. Just don't expect me to take most of what you've said in this thread seriously. I certainly hope nobody else does. If it's any consolation, however - you're not the only one. You've got a LOT of company in this thread on both sides of the argument. Some of the folks who're defending chemical use (of any kind) are just as far out in left field.

Reidar

July 18th, 2006, 07:50 PM

I gave up even trying to figure out your perspective halfway through the thread. How about this one for starters:

"Excess caffeine has been proven to cause ... premenstrual syndrome..."

I don't even know where you're getting that one. PMS is caused by a wonderful hormonal cocktail of hormones and neurotransmitters during a specific portion of a woman's cycle. The symptoms of PMS do not correspond to the effects of caffeine on the human body. Caffeine is not a cause of PMS.

Caffeine is a CNS stimulant. Chronic usage of it substantially increases serotonin levels, which plays a role in the regulation of moods.

The increased risk of miscarriages appears above a reasonable intake level (3 Cups/day), but the birth defects you're talking about require one or two pots of coffee per day. Certainly a concern for the heaviest of coffee drinkers, but it's hardly the sort of thing that would make me slap a cup of tea or bar of chocolate from a pregnant woman's hand.

I could say the same thing about a buddy opening a can of beer. Obviously, we were speaking in terms of possible effects through overdosages of each.

The danger of caffeine exposure is nothing compared to the dangerous environmental levels of dihydrogen monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/) in this country.

I don't quite see the point of this.

I dunno quite how to categorize your posts in this thread. You sound like you get your medical knowledge from fitness mags or something - but if that's the case, I'd still expect you to better informed (or less MISinformed). The last guy I talked with that sounded like you was a Raw Foodist who liked to tell me that Cooked Food Is Poison.

I research kinesiology in my leisure time in order to aid weightlifting training. If you'd point out as to how and where I have erred, it'd be much appreciated. You didn't really give any adequate counterpoints. You basically said in the first remark, "No, you're wrong. It does not."

Doesn't matter to me, really - believe what you want. Just don't expect me to take most of what you've said in this thread seriously. I certainly hope nobody else does. If it's any consolation, however - you're not the only one. You've got a LOT of company in this thread on both sides of the argument. Some of the folks who're defending chemical use (of any kind) are just as far out in left field.

I believe in proof via explanations behind assertions as opposed to unfounded assumptions. Don't console me. Contradict me.

Leader Desslock

July 18th, 2006, 11:02 PM

I believe in proof via explanations behind assertions as opposed to unfounded assumptions. Don't console me. Contradict me.
I did. Rather than acknowledge the error of your post (only one of many), you tried to change the target. You even did that ineffectively, since hyperserotonemia is not PMS and your counter statement is merely a bland generalization, not fact. Of course, now that it's been pointed out, you'll change the target again. And again. And again. I have no doubt that if I pointed out one of the many other things you've got wrong, you'd do the same for each of them.

Clearly there's nothing to be gained in pointing out errors to someone who can't acknowledge them when they're pointed out. I'm sure the folks who made Reefer Madness thought they were just as right, and I'm sure they were just as impossible to convince otherwise no matter how much data was provided.

This was the pattern of my Raw Foodist co-worker, who couldn't support his allegations that 'cooked food is poison' any more than you can support your contention that 'caffeine causes PMS'. More recently on AN, it's the patter with which Zugzwang used to argue. At least he made it interesting by calling me an insane reptilian mind-rapist for the parasitic alien overlords.

You wanna argue with a fellow brick wall? Here's the raw foodie nuts that wrote my co-workers bible: http://www.rawfood.com/nfl.html Go play with them. They're calling you wrong. Or better yet, go play with the Scientologists - they're calling you wrong as well.

...Obviously, we were speaking in terms of possible effects through overdosages of each.
By that argument, you could talk about the potential toxicity of water in this thread and call it fair game. It was after I had that thought that I remembered the folks crusading against Dihydrogen Monoxide in our environment. Hence the link.

To sum up, as I tried to do earlier, the amount of misinformation in this thread has exceeded my ability and inclination to correct. The best I can do is slap a big warning label on the thread for anyone who comes along to take everything that's been said in this thread with a grain of salt, since most of it's conveniently skewed, or in many cases, simply wrong.

Reidar

July 18th, 2006, 11:35 PM

I did. Rather than acknowledge the error of your post (only one of many), you tried to change the target. You even did that ineffectively, since hyperserotonemia is not PMS and your counter statement is merely a bland generalization, not fact. Of course, now that it's been pointed out, you'll change the target again. And again. And again. I have no doubt that if I pointed out one of the many other things you've got wrong, you'd do the same for each of them.

Serotonin is a monoamine neurotransmitter that causes the mood swings in PMS symptoms. Hyperseotonemia is a completely seperate condition resulting from an excess of 5-HT in the central nervous system, which is completely opposite of a deficiency as seen in PMS. I never made any reference to hyperserotonemia. Also, I'd like you to point out whatever my generalization was and instance of "changing the target".

Clearly there's nothing to be gained in pointing out errors to someone who can't acknowledge them when they're pointed out. I'm sure the folks who made Reefer Madness thought they were just as right, and I'm sure they were just as impossible to convince otherwise no matter how much data was provided.

Bad analogy. I'm arguing about science. There's a right and a wrong, and if I'm wrong, you'd find evidence to prove me wrong. It's black and white. Your example is a moral issue ultimately concluded upon the individual's opinion.

This was the pattern of my Raw Foodist co-worker, who couldn't support his allegations that 'cooked food is poison' any more than you can support your contention that 'caffeine causes PMS'. More recently on AN, it's the patter with which Zugzwang used to argue. At least he made it interesting by calling me an insane reptilian mind-rapist for the parasitic alien overlords.

Why didn't you ask for links if you didn't believe what I was saying?

"Although there are a number of theories as to why premenstrual syndrome (PMS) occurs, the most widely accepted blames a deficiency of serotonin, a neurotransmitter in the brain that controls mood and sense of well being. "The fact that practically all drugs that increase serotonin have been found to help relieve severe symptoms of premenstrual syndrome (PMS) lends further confirmation to the concept that serotonin levels are abnormal in women with PMS," notes Andrea Rapkin, M.D., professor of obstetrics and gynecology."

"These drugs, called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), improve mood by affecting the levels of a chemical messenger in the brain (neurotransmitter) called serotonin.
Why It Is Used

SSRIs may be used when:

* Depression, mood changes, and other behavioral or emotional disturbances are major symptoms of PMS."

http://www.healthcare.ucla.edu/vitalsigns/article-display?article_id=292
http://concernedcounseling.com/Communities/depression/treatment/antidepressants/ssri_pms.asp

I'm assuming that you're aware of caffeine affecting serotonin levels already. If not, just say so.

By that argument, you could talk about the potential toxicity of water in this thread and call it fair game. It was after I had that thought that I remembered the folks crusading against Dihydrogen Monoxide in our environment. Hence the link.

Indeed, you could. Drinking natural-occuring water while camping can make you sick in more ways than one. It's also very possible to suffer from water poisoning, caused from overhydration. What is your point?

To sum up, as I tried to do earlier, the amount of misinformation in this thread has exceeded my ability and inclination to correct. The best I can do is slap a big warning label on the thread for anyone who comes along to take everything that's been said in this thread with a grain of salt, since most of it's conveniently skewed, or in many cases, simply wrong.

Fallacy of hasty induction, once again.

It's rather ironic how I'm a brick wall after trying to get a concise, mature explanation out of someone repeatedly resorting to making such an accusation.