The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Absinthius
About
User Name: Absinthius
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation: Molecular Biologist
Interests:
Gender: Male
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Thursday, April 23, 2015
Last Visit: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:40:43 AM
Number of Posts: 341
[0.04% of all post / 0.35 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Las Vegas
Posted: Thursday, November 30, 2017 7:17:06 AM
Listening, of course the problem is multi-faceted. But to solve a problem, you need to apply the right tools. As Hope already mentioned in this thread, the Dickey act prevents even researching the best way to handle this issue.

Therefore I would pose that the root of the problem lies with Americas attitude towards guns and all related manners. The moment anyone dares to even suggest that perhaps less access to guns could reduce the amount of gun violence you see that a very vocal (and very rich) group of Americans instantly jumps into the frey to obscure any kind of real discussion. Blaming it on whatever they can see without even accepting the possbility that mass gun ownership is at the very least partly to blame.

If the USA wants to prove these arguments to be wrong, lift the Dickey amendment and show it using objective research data. But for the love of [insert random deity] stop making excuses.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Topic: Las Vegas
Posted: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:23:58 AM
Listening . . . wrote:
Absinthius wrote:
Diazepam is a very broadly used drug that has been around for a long time. It is most known under the name Valium. Considering that this drug is used in many many countries, I think trying to pin any of this on Diazepam is a bit of a stretch. These kind of mass shootings seem to be much more prevalent in the US as compared to other parts of the Western world.
Unless prescriptions for benzodiazepines in the US are somehow more potent than in other parts of the world (I doubt that). I know quite a few people in the Netherlands that take this drug, it is very broadly used. Yet there luckily are not that many random, unprovoked acts of mass-killings in this country.

Not speaking for Drago, more as a general observation. It seems that people from the US go to great lenghts to find any kind of argument to claim that guns are not the problem. It is baffling, as I'm convinced that no other Western country has this strange obsession with owning tools made specifically for killing.

It's the easy acces to guns that is the biggest factor. The experiment has been done, we know this. There is a good reason that the entire Western world minus one does not allow for mass gun ownership.



I wouldn’t rule out the benzo side effect/ withdrawal / recovery as factor. Do some research where the patients are the guide - not the pharmaceutical companies. Listen (LISTEN!) to these stories- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5SNRxxyIwIg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iu_i0e-ceoA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P86ilnhxs0k
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Lfz3ztBebI
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NLp6PLC9sEw

Thousands more...

The research has yet to be started on this class of meds.


Just to be clear, the point of my post was to state that even the worst side effects of this drug are in no way to blame for mass shootings. A mass shooting like this one takes plannin and preparation. If the drug was really to blame we would see mass shootings in many many more countries. So using these side effects as an excuse or explanation for the tragedy that happened in Texas is little more than thinly veiled apologetics for gun ownership.

What makes mass shootings so much more prevalent in the US is the easy access to guns. Is this not obvious?

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Topic: I am NOT a bastard
Posted: Friday, November 17, 2017 5:31:48 AM
Perhaps it is time to put this forum out of its misery, it is beyond saving at this point. Reading posts here has become a guilty pleasure, the constant bickering is midly entertaining but has no real educational value.

This site has some great people who have been fighting their hardest to keep a modicum of objectivity and rationality going, but let's face it.. The sheer volume of toxicity and ad hominem attacks drown out any civilized discourse that you try to uphold. It is honestly a bit heartbreaking to see people I genuinely respect stoop down to shocking lows and low-blows because of a webiste that moderators clearly can't even be bothered about.

Isn't it time that this site succombs to the exodus of rationality that we witness in many forums for discussion, e-based or otherwise?!

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Topic: Las Vegas
Posted: Friday, October 20, 2017 8:17:39 AM
A brilliantly comical and, in my humble opinion, very well considered take on this topic is presented by John Oliver. For those who havent seen this, it is surprisingly informative!

He also talks about the Dicey amendmet that Hope mentioned in the post above.

Edit: Accidental typo in the name of the amendment, but it fits too well to correct.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Topic: Las Vegas
Posted: Friday, October 20, 2017 3:37:48 AM
Diazepam is a very broadly used drug that has been around for a long time. It is most known under the name Valium. Considering that this drug is used in many many countries, I think trying to pin any of this on Diazepam is a bit of a stretch. These kind of mass shootings seem to be much more prevalent in the US as compared to other parts of the Western world.
Unless prescriptions for benzodiazepines in the US are somehow more potent than in other parts of the world (I doubt that). I know quite a few people in the Netherlands that take this drug, it is very broadly used. Yet there luckily are not that many random, unprovoked acts of mass-killings in this country.

Not speaking for Drago, more as a general observation. It seems that people from the US go to great lenghts to find any kind of argument to claim that guns are not the problem. It is baffling, as I'm convinced that no other Western country has this strange obsession with owning tools made specifically for killing.

It's the easy acces to guns that is the biggest factor. The experiment has been done, we know this. There is a good reason that the entire Western world minus one does not allow for mass gun ownership.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Topic: Gun Violence by the Numbers
Posted: Friday, July 28, 2017 10:24:57 AM
Hope123 wrote:
(I know I will never be on THE "fair-minded" list, but I read the Parser's post anyhow". Whistle )


You rascal, you! Don't let papa-righteous catch you!

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Topic: What for the Creator Created us?
Posted: Thursday, July 06, 2017 7:07:23 AM
Weren't there a whole bunch of hoofed creations present during His (or his, not sure whether a reference to the smaller version of the big guy also needs to be capitalized) birth?

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Topic: Antonym of 'religious'.
Posted: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:42:51 PM
TMe wrote:
What is the antonym (one word) of religious?

Rational.

2) Who is a fanatic?


Anyone who thinks others have to adhere to their beliefs. Especially if they use force, indoctrination or fear to make it so.

Though there is of course no one true answer to these questions.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Topic: difference between religion and morality
Posted: Friday, June 16, 2017 4:11:49 AM
Which conveniently avoids addressing the challenges to your argument.

Perhaps we should leave this digression for what it is. I would, however, appreciate it if you could reply to the contents (not the perceived tone) of the post Will made on June 14th.

Would you be willing to Jacobus?

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Topic: difference between religion and morality
Posted: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:05:59 PM
jacobusmaximus wrote:
[
Question (just a question)- If your conclusion that there is no God is based upon current scientific knowledge, and you are aware that that scientific knowledge is subject to change, do you not then believe only by faith - as e.g. Christians do?



No, faith is believe in the absence of evidence. Quite the opposite to drawing a conclusion based on all the available data.

And yes, scientific knowledge evolves. It molds itself to fit reality and become closer and closer to the actual truth. This does not, however, mean that the big picture it describes is still merely guesswork. You can count on the vast body of knowledge that the scientific method has provided over the years without having to dive into guesswork (i.e. faith) to draw your conclusions. If that were the case noone would ever get into a car or on a plane ever.

The complete and utter lack of any evidence of a supernatural deity, even though many have really tried to prove one exists, is so overwhelming that the conclusion of it's non-existence is not a stretch. Not a guess, not faith. I'm sure you would agree if we were to name this deity Zeus or Thor? Atheists reconize that your paricular deity just adds to the long list of non-existent things.



Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.