Dasus @ Dasus @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

3,626

Joined

1 yr. ago

but I'll never agree that it's unreasonable to expect citizens of a democracy to...

No-one claimed as much. I certainly didn't even imply such.

And which one do you consider a democracy, Nazi Germany or the US? Because according to academics, neither are.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

And that's from over ten years ago.

Should've, would've, could've.

Frame it however you want but I would never agree to willfully stand inside a burning house.

And to a lot of people, the US is looking worse than a house-fire. So I commend you for your will to fight against such bullshit, but I definitely don't blame anyone for bailing out.

Maybe in countries where police accountability isn’t a punchline.

Name one.

Nope, how logical a decision is doesn't get decided afterwards and conditionally.

It's decided based on what information they had at that point. The dude's grandpa knew it was the right choice to get out. Even if he hadn't fought, it would've been the right choice.

Or are you saying that if the girl his grandpa was after had come with him, that it would've only been acceptable had that girl then joined the US military to fight the Nazis, a hundred years ago? And if she hadn't, then it would've still been the right decision for the grandpa to bail from Germany to fight the Nazis, but it would've been a wrong decision for the girl?

Yes, I get social responsibility, but you're being literally unreasonable.

You know national borders exist, right?

Idk man, seems like it's kinda more destroyed now, tbh.

Also, I don't know about that being a western opinion per se. I chatted with a ~50y old Persian guy some 15 years ago, and he was saying much the same as the guy you replied to.

That's why he left as I understood it. Well 'twasn' t the only reason, but still.

It's essentially a punishment for daring to fall in love with someone who isn't British/Irish

OR rich.

Which makes it worse.

"We're racist, but if you're rich, we'll overlook it"

No you won't.

It's genuinely more or less just more "reefer madness".

If you actually read my comment and the study carefully, you might notice that.

For example:

Because there is no diagnostic code for CHS, we followed the previous literature identifying CHS ED visits as those in which vomiting (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Canada [ICD-10-CA] code R11) was the primary diagnosis and a cannabis harm (ICD-10-CA code F12 or T40.7) was an additional diagnosis.19,20 Since CHS is not widely recognized, we developed a secondary outcome measure termed sensitive CHS ED visits, which includes the primary outcome definition and an ED visit with a primary diagnosis of vomiting (ICD-10-CA code R11) plus an ED visit owing to a cannabis harm in the 6 months preceding or following the incident vomiting visit.

So, anyone who's been labeled to have any sort of harm from cannabis, which a lot of people take to just be use of cannabis. I can show you a recording of a psychiatrist supposedly specialising in drugs and addiction, who told me "there is no safe amount of cannabis you can use".

And then, when any of those roughly just users, report with vomiting to an ER even 6 months after someone has written down something about cannabis use, it get counted as "cannabis hyperemesis syndrome".

So because legalisation has made doctors more aware they're questioning youth more about cannabis use. And since it's legal, the youths aren't lying as much as they used to. But they still have the same amount of alcohol overdoses (ie getting so drunk you start vomiting) and if you then visit the ER even just for being too drunk or having a fever with vomiting, you'll be counted as a "ER CHS patient".

So you know. You really do need to go and read the things they claim, all the way down to the source. For one most of the things they source in those studies are studies which aren't exclusively Canadian, making your "well the study is Canadian" argument a bit frail, since the study references other non-Canadian studies.

I'm not against regulation, and I think a boozecard model would be fantastic. For things that actually require it. We had the same in Finland, up until the 70's, really.

It was from '44-' 70 yeah.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratt_System

But see that was for booze, not beer. Since growing your own is also legal and east af, trying to control the amount of cannabis wouldn't work in practice, and as someone who's known daily users for years, I don't think there is any inherent factor in cannabis which would cause this syndrome ("syndrome" = a collection of symptoms, not a disease in itself). It's more bad reporting and bad understanding of the subject.

For one when you're totally drunk, never smoked weed, you take a large hit of something strong, you can easily start to feel spinning such that you literally vomit like there's no tomorrow. To the point people who haven't seen it will genuinely consider taking them to the ER. And during something like that, it does help to be in a hot shower.

However as the drunkenness wears off, the person becomes even more nauseous, as they're still plenty high without being used to it, and the hangover is creeping in.

But never have I ever seen anyone vomit from cannabis who hasn't been drinking. I'm not saying they don't exist or that this syndrome isn't real. I'm just saying I don't see a well-explained causal relationship. I just see a bunch of poor correlation, as always.

Anyways, yeah, register and limit. For actual drugs. That's why booze was on the card but beer wasn't. You can make that at home and it's not strong enough to mess you up line vodka will do.

Just the same, cannabis should be legal and ecstasy and others legalised with the Bratt system. People don't cook mdma at home if there's some available to purchase legally.

Government is leaving out billions in drug money because there's a huge market for illegal drugs just going completely unregulated and untaxed.

Yeah that sort of luck is hard to believe, but so is winning the lottery. But it usually happens to someone.

Honestly, for him, I hope he was drunk. Otherwise, or even if he was, he'll have fucking hard trauma forever. But studies show that you're more likely to survive accidents and get less mental trauma if you're drunk. (Although being drunk is often the cause for accidents, so discounting that...)

Anyway, incredible luck in such misfortune

I wouldn't say "combative". Critical, maybe.

It is a syndrome they're describing, with rather vague symptoms and a very large userbase.

I'm not one to deny the risks of anything, but since cannabis has been subjected to biased research and journalism for 100 years, it's not really surprising some people are somewhat critical of something this vague.

Like what's your suggestion on "regulation"? Because I think an appropriate age limit is fine, just like with alcohol. Actual proper legalisation would allow people to actually know how much theyre consuming. Now it's just random strength weed for random amount of inhale. If you knew x mg per puff or edible, like you can do in some places, but not most of the world, then it becomes easier knowing how much you're actually consuming. So yeah, better regulation. Which requires legalisation.

But highest amount of NHL players per capita and suddenly the top three is Finland, Sweden and Canada, while USA falls way behind.

Even though it's the "Nation" in the "National Hockey League".

Correction, I managed to shame you into actually writing something instead of that childish spam.

You still can't address why you're in the thread to begin with. The proof that I am right is in you spamming "k" for a dozen comments because you can't discuss the definition of "arbitrary" because you realise your previous statements weren't correct. And you're just not big enough of a person to admit that to yourself. ¯(ツ)/¯

Basically yeah, you can refuse, but that's the more absolute form. What you should do if you suspect the legality of an order is to ask it in writing, register that you don't want to follow, but will comply.

Then afterwards you'll be less responsible. Depends on what it's about, you can't just register a complaint about killing kids and then do it anyway, but like for milder illegal orders.

Dig your pit deeper.

Remember how you said you "love being proved wrong"?

Well timekeeping systems aren't arbitrary. Care to comment? No...? ;>

Good looking, intellectual, profile, eh?

I won this time, like I usually do.

You're dragging this out because you're pretending you didn't. But... You can't talk about the thread. You're just seething that you're caught in this. Ego makes you reply without you being able to talk about why you're in the thread to start with.

Like I've said, I've seen this a 1000 times. You think you're being clever. No. You're just being infantile.

The great part is you can't say anything, showing you're only here because of your ego, despite having literally nothing to say, while I keep giving you options and urging you to just accept growth. You know, since you "love admitting when you're wrong"?

Remember when you were talking about how you love to admit it when you make mistakes, because it's a learning opportunity? Or was that someone else pulling this same shit. Because again, I have seen this 1000 times over several years if not decades.

Leaving a comment here for someone to reply to with more information

Edit it was for me to easily find back. Inwas suspicious of this person claiming it's faked. Miraculous surviving happens all the time. It's just a very low chance. But like people have survived falling out of planes without parachutes to the middle of the jungle

I don't want to come off as bullying, but I think it'll benefit from you if you learn to handle situations like this. So I'm gonna keep replying. Sorry.

Why do you consider timekeeping systems to be arbitrary?