When will the NFL learn from the NBA and stop testing for Marijuana? (2 Viewers)

[tinman]

When you say 21st century, that tells everything about your way of thinking. The “spirit of the times” as a forward, linear and infinite progress has been debunked a couple of centuries ago by philosophers. Progress for the sake of progress is flat out wrong. So, you might want to reconsider what marijuana has to do with women voting, even as a figure of speech. Legalization *can* be wrong, regardless of centuries and progress. Just deal with it.

Ps: and talking about ignorance, sugar as the most addictive substance is pure BS - https://www.theguardian.com/society...-scientists-row-over-effect-on-body-and-brain

Ignorance once again rears its ugly head! go back to your flat earth bs & enjoy !
Progress IS, whether you like it or not. Safety & social responsibility has USUALLY advanced. Since humans can do nothing but exist a linear fashion, how else do YOU measure progress?(as a purely philosophical exercise of course). Have you found Dr Who's Tardis to travel in time? If not, you're stuck here w/the rest of the world living a linear life from birth to death w/NO mulligans!
Instead of getting your panties in a knot about the "21stc" reference, maybe acknowledge that we ARE in fact becoming more enlightened & progressive(apart from the attacks from the current US admin).

You might want to consider how EVERYTHING in life is affected by other SEEMINGLY unrelated situations! It was NOT used as a figure of speech, it WAS an example of past misbehavior that has been rectified, by forward-thinking people.
WE ARE living in the 21st c, no mattter that your mind is fixatted on the "golden years"of whatever ignorant time you embrace. Your ill informed assertions are being disproved daily, Just deal w/it!

As for as your rebuttal w/the Guardian site, for every one you can finds there are dozens more that have a completely different result.

 

[ItFan]

Ignorance once again rears its ugly head! go back to your flat earth bs & enjoy !
Progress IS, whether you like it or not. Safety & social responsibility has USUALLY advanced. Since humans can do nothing but exist a linear fashion, how else do YOU measure progress?(as a purely philosophical exercise of course). Have you found Dr Who's Tardis to travel in time? If not, you're stuck here w/the rest of the world living a linear life from birth to death w/NO mulligans!
Instead of getting your panties in a knot about the "21stc" reference, maybe acknowledge that we ARE in fact becoming more enlightened & progressive(apart from the attacks from the current US admin).

You might want to consider how EVERYTHING in life is affected by other SEEMINGLY unrelated situations! It was NOT used as a figure of speech, it WAS an example of past misbehavior that has been rectified, by forward-thinking people.
WE ARE living in the 21st c, no mattter that your mind is fixatted on the "golden years"of whatever ignorant time you embrace. Your ill informed assertions are being disproved daily, Just deal w/it!

As for as your rebuttal w/the Guardian site, for every one you can finds there are dozens more that have a completely different result.

I guess that when an argumentation is based on a logical fallacy and the other is not, anyone can see where ignorance is.

 

[tinman]

I guess that when an argumentation is based on a logical fallacy and the other is not, anyone can see where ignorance is.

So true! Science, empirical evidence, experience & human evolution(physically, emotionally & intelligently)will always show against fallacy. So when you offer any evidence of any kind on the SUBJECT of the discussion rather than :

Your logical fallacy is tu quoque

You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Your logical fallacy is no true scotsman

You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

get back w/us.

 

[ItFan]

So true! Science, empirical evidence, experience & human evolution(physically, emotionally & intelligently)will always show against fallacy. So when you offer any evidence of any kind on the SUBJECT of the discussion rather than :

Your logical fallacy is tu quoque

You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Your logical fallacy is no true scotsman

You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

get back w/us.

Ok:

1) “Progress IS”
False. Time is. Movement can. Progress maybe.
You have to know where you’re going, if you want to assess any progress. I mean you can go forward, or go backwards and nullify progress. Or you can stay put, if the point you reached is satisfactory.
Obviously, progress is not, not by itself, because it depends on direction of movement. So that’s a fallacy.
Note that if you believe in progress always and ever, you could ruin an ideal 100% progress, because you would have to change it one way or another.

2) “Safety & social responsibility has usually advanced”
So what. You talk about progress and change as if this would be a valid argumentation for legalization. See, in your reasoning “I want legalization” plus “responsibility has usually advanced” equals “legalization is probably responsibility”. And that’s an obvious and huge logical fallacy.

3) “Humans exist a linear fashion”
Again, so what. Progress can reach a high point, and fall back. Just think about 1915 and 1935.
Linear and infinite means always pointing up, and that’s just not possible.
Logical fallacy: since existence is linear (time), then progress is linear (not a time related concept).
Mind that it’s exactly that blind faith in progress that sometimes leads humanity to fix what’s not broken.

4) “How else do you measure progress?”
Well, by the actual contents of progress!
E.g. “legalization is good” vs “legalization is bad”. Evaluate, decide, and then measure.
Your assertion, instead, logically implies that change is always good, regardless of contents. You repeatedly mistake progress for movement.

5) “Acknowledge that we are becoming more enlightened”
Again, you mistake the general direction of movement, that led humanity to a degree of enlightment, for the movement itself regardless of direction. We became more enlightened, but lots of changes in the last fifty years are at least debatable. One has to evaluate the contents of every single step. Obviously.

6) “It was an example of past misbehaviour that was rectified”
That doesn’t mean that everybody must agree on legalization just because in the past there was a positive change on something totally unrelated.
I don’t know if you realize that you constantly point on change, as if it’s necessarily something good.

7) “We are living in the 21th century”
Of course, but when someone points to that, it’s not an indication of intelligence - quite the opposite. I’m sorry.
This scheme was exposed as “the obligation to fulfill the zeitgeist”. It means that a man from 5000 years ago could think exactly in the same way you think, believe that he’s the most advanced man ever, and justify anything with that. One should think specifically about what he’s lobbying for, and never, ever think about the century he lives in.

8) “Your mind is fixated on the ‘golden years’”
Umpteenth proof that you have a huge bias, like “what’s old is bad”. Stop the rhetoric and talk about why the NFL should lift the ban, with solid argumentations - not progress-related concepts, and not that absurd comparison with sugar, please.

 

[texasjefe]

After reading the this thread, I'm heading out to the sideyard. Later brahs.

 

[Goatman Saint]

I just found a set @ a local auction!LOL

Wait. Like the old kind we used to put one hoop in the front yard and one in the back and throw them over the house type? Frigging sweet dude

 

[greg8710]

Ok:

1) “Progress IS”
False. Time is. Movement can. Progress maybe.
You have to know where you’re going, if you want to assess any progress. I mean you can go forward, or go backwards and nullify progress. Or you can stay put, if the point you reached is satisfactory.
Obviously, progress is not, not by itself, because it depends on direction of movement. So that’s a fallacy.
Note that if you believe in progress always and ever, you could ruin an ideal 100% progress, because you would have to change it one way or another.

2) “Safety & social responsibility has usually advanced”
So what. You talk about progress and change as if this would be a valid argumentation for legalization. See, in your reasoning “I want legalization” plus “responsibility has usually advanced” equals “legalization is probably responsibility”. And that’s an obvious and huge logical fallacy.

3) “Humans exist a linear fashion”
Again, so what. Progress can reach a high point, and fall back. Just think about 1915 and 1935.
Linear and infinite means always pointing up, and that’s just not possible.
Logical fallacy: since existence is linear (time), then progress is linear (not a time related concept).
Mind that it’s exactly that blind faith in progress that sometimes leads humanity to fix what’s not broken.

4) “How else do you measure progress?”
Well, by the actual contents of progress!
E.g. “legalization is good” vs “legalization is bad”. Evaluate, decide, and then measure.
Your assertion, instead, logically implies that change is always good, regardless of contents. You repeatedly mistake progress for movement.

5) “Acknowledge that we are becoming more enlightened”
Again, you mistake the general direction of movement, that led humanity to a degree of enlightment, for the movement itself regardless of direction. We became more enlightened, but lots of changes in the last fifty years are at least debatable. One has to evaluate the contents of every single step. Obviously.

6) “It was an example of past misbehaviour that was rectified”
That doesn’t mean that everybody must agree on legalization just because in the past there was a positive change on something totally unrelated.
I don’t know if you realize that you constantly point on change, as if it’s necessarily something good.

7) “We are living in the 21th century”
Of course, but when someone points to that, it’s not an indication of intelligence - quite the opposite. I’m sorry.
This scheme was exposed as “the obligation to fulfill the zeitgeist”. It means that a man from 5000 years ago could think exactly in the same way you think, believe that he’s the most advanced man ever, and justify anything with that. One should think specifically about what he’s lobbying for, and never, ever think about the century he lives in.

8) “Your mind is fixated on the ‘golden years’”
Umpteenth proof that you have a huge bias, like “what’s old is bad”. Stop the rhetoric and talk about why the NFL should lift the ban, with solid argumentations - not progress-related concepts, and not that absurd comparison with sugar, please.

I read the entire thing. You know why?
Cuz I got high ?

 

[Que Que 6]

As we all know, the NBA is gaining market share not just in the USA, but around the globe.

With as many legitimate criminals in the NFL as there are, such as Arron Gonzalez (RIP), Michael Vick, and Donte Stallworths, why don't we as fans aspire for our league to be as clean cut as the NBA?

Also if we could leave Zion "literally Shawn Kemp" Williamsons out of this , I'd appreciate it. We have a Pelicans board to talk about whether or not we'll finish 4th or 5th in the division for the next four years.

Let's please have a legitimate discussion here boys.

Say What now? LOL

 

[SuperSaint]

I have no problem with medical marijuana use by prescription. I think enough scientific evidence exists that there is a benefit.

Marijuana freely available for recreational use is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Societies in decay always go down this road, read the history of the Roman Empire.

 

[tinman]

I have no problem with medical marijuana use by prescription. I think enough scientific evidence exists that there is a benefit.

Marijuana freely available for recreational use is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Societies in decay always go down this road, read the history of the Roman Empire.

well if the US follows your Roman example, we have @least a few hundred more years!

 

[tinman]

Ok:

1) “Progress IS”
False. Time is. Movement can. Progress maybe.
You have to know where you’re going, if you want to assess any progress. I mean you can go forward, or go backwards and nullify progress. Or you can stay put, if the point you reached is satisfactory.
Obviously, progress is not, not by itself, because it depends on direction of movement. So that’s a fallacy.
Note that if you believe in progress always and ever, you could ruin an ideal 100% progress, because you would have to change it one way or another.

2) “Safety & social responsibility has usually advanced”
So what. You talk about progress and change as if this would be a valid argumentation for legalization. See, in your reasoning “I want legalization” plus “responsibility has usually advanced” equals “legalization is probably responsibility”. And that’s an obvious and huge logical fallacy.

3) “Humans exist a linear fashion”
Again, so what. Progress can reach a high point, and fall back. Just think about 1915 and 1935.
Linear and infinite means always pointing up, and that’s just not possible.
Logical fallacy: since existence is linear (time), then progress is linear (not a time related concept).
Mind that it’s exactly that blind faith in progress that sometimes leads humanity to fix what’s not broken.

4) “How else do you measure progress?”
Well, by the actual contents of progress!
E.g. “legalization is good” vs “legalization is bad”. Evaluate, decide, and then measure.
Your assertion, instead, logically implies that change is always good, regardless of contents. You repeatedly mistake progress for movement.

5) “Acknowledge that we are becoming more enlightened”
Again, you mistake the general direction of movement, that led humanity to a degree of enlightment, for the movement itself regardless of direction. We became more enlightened, but lots of changes in the last fifty years are at least debatable. One has to evaluate the contents of every single step. Obviously.

6) “It was an example of past misbehaviour that was rectified”
That doesn’t mean that everybody must agree on legalization just because in the past there was a positive change on something totally unrelated.
I don’t know if you realize that you constantly point on change, as if it’s necessarily something good.

7) “We are living in the 21th century”
Of course, but when someone points to that, it’s not an indication of intelligence - quite the opposite. I’m sorry.
This scheme was exposed as “the obligation to fulfill the zeitgeist”. It means that a man from 5000 years ago could think exactly in the same way you think, believe that he’s the most advanced man ever, and justify anything with that. One should think specifically about what he’s lobbying for, and never, ever think about the century he lives in.

8) “Your mind is fixated on the ‘golden years’”
Umpteenth proof that you have a huge bias, like “what’s old is bad”. Stop the rhetoric and talk about why the NFL should lift the ban, with solid argumentations - not progress-related concepts, and not that absurd comparison with sugar, please.

The only thing more obvious than the smoke & mirrors BS(you threw out 4 more fallacious arguments), is the believing what you think I wrote vs. what I really wrote & the complete lack of addressing the TOPIC!

2 things come to mind;
1. Never teach a pig to sing, it gets you filthy & pisses off the pig.
2. If the glass is full, no more can be poured into it.

 

[ItFan]

The only thing more obvious than the smoke & mirrors BS(you threw out 4 more fallacious arguments), is the believing what you think I wrote vs. what I really wrote & the complete lack of addressing the TOPIC!

2 things come to mind;
1. Never teach a pig to sing, it gets you filthy & pisses off the pig.
2. If the glass is full, no more can be poured into it.

First, the fact is that you don’t understand what you wrote.

Secondly, you make circular and contradictory arguments: you told me “you answered criticism with criticism”, and then when I explained you exactly why, you answered criticism with criticism.

So show me the egregious 4 fallacies, I’m all ears.

Then, the topic is: valid arguments for legalization. And the burden of proof is on you, not me. You made not one valid argument. You just talk about a hollow concept of progress and 21st century.

Let me say this: in the 21st century, it’s very sad to hear such a low level of thought.

 

[FFSaint]

don't think it's unreasonable to honor the contract you signed. Wanna smoke pot? Retire. Go be a waiter or groundskeeper somewhere. Rarely do those professions get tested.

Bro, Elon Musk ripped a phat joint on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast knowing that the video would find its way around the world quicker than all the satellites he's been launching. People don't care anymore. If these players think that smoking the ganja would help in their recovery from the brutal wear and tear of a football season, who am I to judge?

 

[Optimistic Ozzy]

I have no problem with medical marijuana use by prescription. I think enough scientific evidence exists that there is a benefit.

Marijuana freely available for recreational use is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Societies in decay always go down this road, read the history of the Roman Empire.

Amsterdam might disagree.

 

[superchuck500]

I have no problem with medical marijuana use by prescription. I think enough scientific evidence exists that there is a benefit.

Marijuana freely available for recreational use is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Societies in decay always go down this road, read the history of the Roman Empire.

I don't think anyone is talking about weed being free.

But really, it is a relatively low-impact recreational intoxicant with risks of harm that certainly are no worse (and in some ways less risky) than widely accepted, legal intoxicants and stimulants - if those other intoxicants aren't already putting us in decay, weed won't. And if we are in decay, it's probably more due to structural issues like dramatic concentration of wealth (the historical basis for that as a problem is more compelling than the use of drugs) rather than the use of relatively low-impact recreational intoxicants . . . getting high for recreation is a symptom, not a cause IMO.