ADHD.... Real disorder, or clever way to get us all on pills for life? by 6ixStringJack

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Sure there is, give me proof, don't just make a statement that is incorrect or makes no sense and expect me to take your opinion as gospel. For instance you said that science was the cause of holocausts, show me one example of a holocaust caused by science.....

As far as I'm concerned, I haven't said anything that is incorrect. You have either misinterpreted what I said, or because of your unwavering devotion to the 100% validiity of all things science, you will never agree with anything that I have to say.

Ask the Japanese about a holocaust that could not have happened without science. But of course you're going to argue that this was politics or human nature, so I know I already lost this arguement.

Quote:
...you say that most scientific research is controlled by people who want to use it for unscrupulous purposes, prove it, don't just say it.

This entire post about the overuse and overprescription of behavioral modifying medication and how it is just an infantile form of the PAX on Serenity I think is a very good start, but for the same reasons as above, you're going to argue me on this one too.... so what's the point?

Quote:
If you bring up the medical experiments done by the Nazi's in WW2 I won't defend them, if you want me to condemn the forced use of untested drugs on unwilling subjects then I will agree. If you want me to say that science is the cause of all the worlds ills then you don't stand a chance, if you want me to say that nothing should ever stand in the way of scientific progress then you are going to have a tough time. The problem is that you are making sweeping generalizations based on rare instances and expecting me to jump to your side without evidence, without logic, and without question.

Well of course you won't defend that. Even science won't defend what the Nazi's did. I'm just suprised that you brought this up at all, let alone that you didn't just blame the Nazi's. I myself wouldn't have brought this up first, because bringing up Nazi's in any argument to make a point, as it's been pointed out to me in here before, is simply a way of losing another arguement. Now that you mention it though....

I never once said that Science was the root of all of man's ills, not once. I've also conceded that inherently science isn't bad, it is the men behind it that are. I've even said that there is a lot of good that has come from science. I'm a big fan of antiseptics, for example. I'm not even saying that anything should stand in the way of science, such as the proposals from Bush against Stem Cell research. I do, however, expect the people behind scientific discoveries to be sane and use these things for the good of mankind, and not the enslavement of mankind. I just want some accountability, which is in short supply it seems.

I have no problem with you responding to my posts, if you cease from twisting my words around to make a point. Like I've said before, I do believe that generally we agree on a lot, but because there are a few things about science that I mention that you don't like, you bastardize everything I say to prove your point.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 16, 2007 8:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
As far as I'm concerned, I haven't said anything that is incorrect.

This seems to be the root of the problem, you make a statement of questionable validity (such as the majority of science being funded by people who intend to use it for unscrupulous purposes) and then you refuse to provide evidence and expect me to accept it because you said it.

Quote:
You have either misinterpreted what I said

Point out what I misinterpreted and correct me then, clearly articulate your point and I will respond to it correctly.

Quote:
or because of your unwavering devotion to the 100% validiity of all things science, you will never agree with anything that I have to say.

I have a devotion to factual arguement instead of opinion stated as fact, you consistantly state your opinion without any supporting evidence and then get pissed when I call you on it.

Quote:
Ask the Japanese about a holocaust that could not have happened without science.

You kind of have a point here, but you are forgetting something, if we hadn't used the bomb we would have had to invade mainland Japan, that would have resulted in much more casualties (on both sides) than the bombs did. The atomic bombings were certainly horrific, but they were actually not much more effective (speaking from a population and material loss standpoint) than the firebombings of Dresden or Tokyo before. The major difference is that the atomic bomb was psychologically more effective because at the time it was incredible to think that one bomb could level a city. The psychological effect allowed us to avoid an incredibly costly invasion.

I will concede that the bombs were products of science and were used in a horrific fashion, but I will not concede that it was worse than the alternative.

Quote:
But of course you're going to argue that this was politics or human nature, so I know I already lost this arguement.

Since you brought them up, Truman decided to use the bombs because the cost of an invasion would have been even more horrific, and World War 2 as a whole was a product of politics. Human nature played its part, Truman wanted to protect Americans and was willing to sacrifice the Japanese to do it.

Quote:
This entire post about the overuse and overprescription of behavioral modifying medication and how it is just an infantile form of the PAX on Serenity I think is a very good start, but for the same reasons as above, you're going to argue me on this one too.... so what's the point?

The issue is this "we keep letting science dictate our lives", just like you say that I have a love affair with science you seem intent on blaming it for everything that comes up. The PAX in Serenity was put on that planet because the POLITICIANS decided to engage in social engineering. Science can be used for good or evil, but in itself it is neither. You seem intent on painting science as the motivating force behind every issue you bring up instead of blaming the power-hungry PEOPLE at fault.

If you are saying that overmedication is a problem then I won't argue the point, but you want to blame science when the real fault lays with the social problems. Like I said before, if people didn't want the drugs they wouldn't be made and people want the drugs because our society can only sustain its industrial base by making people unhappy with their lives and telling them that if they buy more stuff they will be happy, but when they buy the stuff they still aren't happy so they decide to turn to medication.

Quote:
Well of course you won't defend that. Even science won't defend what the Nazi's did.

But it was done in the name of science and according to you I will never fail to defend science.

Quote:
because bringing up Nazi's in any argument to make a point, as it's been pointed out to me in here before, is simply a way of losing another arguement.

I was trying to find points that supported your assertion that science was driven by unscrupulous people and drawing blanks so I had to go with whatever popped up, if I thought about it for a while I would have been able to come up with better examples.

Quote:
I never once said that Science was the root of all of man's ills, not once.

Perhaps I stretched a little, but I read this:

Quote:
"Now we've got things so easy that we don't really need to rely on each other much. Most of us don't really do much either, wheather at work or at home. We have more freetime now than we've ever had, thanks to Science, and what do we choose to do with this great gift of down time? Well.... most of us choose to feel bad about ourselves... how we look, how little money we have compared to the next guy, our looks, our failed marriages, our kids that never live up to our expectations, our parents who just don't understand, child support, alimony, infedility, that f*ing neighbor and his dog that barks all night... ect. Now for many of us the easiest fix of all is here. Who needs the hassle of religion to cope when Science has brought us our wonder drugs?

As you saying that because of science we have the problems you listed. On closer inspection that probably isn't what you meant, however I must point out again that in that quote you are pointing to social problems that are caused by the drive for consumption, not science.

Quote:
I've also conceded that inherently science isn't bad, it is the men behind it that are.

Sweeping generalization, now support it with facts. The vast majority of scientists are in it for knowledge and natural curiosity, the vast majority of funding for science goes to fields that have no practical application in the comission of evil acts. I will concede that drug companies have a vested interest in making people want to take their drugs, but that is a result of the economic structure that we have chosen, every corporation is in it for the money, it's what they do, but that is capitalism not science.

Quote:
I'm not even saying that anything should stand in the way of science, such as the proposals from Bush against Stem Cell research.

You give the impresson (at least to me) that you do, if I am misreading you I'm sorry but everything you post seems to be pointed towards saying that science should be severely restricted.

Quote:
I do, however, expect the people behind scientific discoveries to be sane and use these things for the good of mankind, and not the enslavement of mankind.

And the vast majority are, even the drug companies are sane they just are looking to make a profit (capitalism again). If you can direct me to a way to weed out the insane ones then I can make you a billionare, but there is no way so we just have to push on and hope for the best.

Quote:
I just want some accountability, which is in short supply it seems.

In the scientific world accountability is law (if you make a huge discovery you don't want anyone else to be able to take credit for it), you mentioned Fen Fen earlier, if you looked around you could probably easily find the scientists who developed it. However they did not make the decision to sell it without adequate testing, that was a business decision made by businessmen, not scientists. If you want to look for accountability in the world of nutritional supplements you usually need to look at the business side (which means you won't find any).

Quote:
I have no problem with you responding to my posts, if you cease from twisting my words around to make a point. Like I've said before, I do believe that generally we agree on a lot, but because there are a few things about science that I mention that you don't like, you bastardize everything I say to prove your point.

Perhaps I misread your posts, but you make sweeping generalizations that indict the entire institution of science and blame science for everything that comes around, just like you claim I am blinded by my love of science you are seemingly unwilling to look past it for the root cause of the problems you bring up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 16, 2007 9:01 PM

Well sorry if it seems the way you thought it does, but it isn't. Like I said, I think we agree on this a lot more than you think. Perhaps it is businesses and politicians that should be entirely to blame for the evil things men do with science. Trust me, when I'm not in a debate with science people about science, those are usually the very people that I'm bashing all day long. It IS because of our corrupt government and economic system that I believe that science will be the device used to destroy mankind, or at least, everything that is good about mankind. It's all the same wheather we're wiped out in a global nuclear holocaust or if we're all successfully subdued and subjugated by a PAX-esque virus one day.

I'm not saying that all scientists are evil, and I don't have some false assumtions of "mad scientism" like I'm sure many people in the world have because the scientist is usually portrayed as crazy and power hungry, (Dr. Evil, Dr. Claw, Dr. No, the scientist that Newman played on Jurassic Park) the list goes on and on) or they are like those guys in the Aliens movies that wouldn't allow Ripley and crew to destroy the alien menace because of all of the scientific discoveries and applications that would be lost if they were to become extinct. Of course they usually were killed in the end and people rejoyced.

So, what is your answer then. I'm saying that science has run amok, and though we may disagree on the way that I word this, I think we agree that there is a serious misuse and abuse of science in certain and important cases that needs to be addressed and prevented in the future. I'm saying that there needs to be accountability.

I loved science when I was a kid, and even up until a few years ago. I think I really started to fear it when I realized that even the jocks and cheerleaders were using computers now, more than I was, for the internet. It was a wake up call. It was like WTF? This is something that computer nerds like me were into and got ridiculed for (well... I was pretty much a closet computer nerd myself. I did a lot of sports and partied quite a bit too). I dont' think the shrinking of the world due to the internet is a good thing. I suppose if you're pro science you embrace change. I don't like change. I like comfort zones. I like things to be the way they were. My problem, I realize. As the world speeds up, I'm likely to become a dinosaur before I'm 35 years old.

Can we at least agree that there needs to be some action taken to prevent science from being used in the future against mankind and the will of the individual? I'm talking about a psychological holocaust as well as a physical one. Maybe you're a fan of everybody thinking like-minded, and I'm thinking you're not because you like Firefly, (unless, that is, you rooted for the Alliance the whole time) but I'm terrified about that. I'm not suggesting we go back to the horse and buggy, but I'd like for things to slow down a bit and for responsible decisions to be made where something a bit more practical and morale than the almighty dollar was the primary motivating factor. I can't think of anything science has provided us with in the last 5 years which has benifited mankind.... something that we actually needed, yet we have a ton of technological stuff, made in China, in the last 5 years that we just can't live without now. Not one thing has improved our happiness, other than the artificial happiness that these evil little pills bring us. We're more miserable and at each other's throats than ever. You can argue high-speed internet and 50" plasma TV's are a boon if you like, but if anything, they only serve to alienate us even more from the people we're supposed to care about. I go to my dad's house now and they've got 5 TVs, 3 computers, 4 video game systems, and aside from the time my brothers, my dad, my step-mom and myself sit down for dinner, almost everybody goes back to their own room to veg out alone on whatever crap sparks their interests.... which is rarely the same thing.

Now, I'll blame this on choice before anybody else does, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't. Freedom of choice is my thing man. I'm just hoping that people choose to be responsible and not let money and the easy-thought-free-life ruin everything in the end. People could say no and turn off their TV's, but they don't. People could say no to the Psychiatrists and teachers forcing pills down our children's throats, but they don't. The few who choose to live free of such trappings are so alienated from the rest of the human race because they know nothing about the newest TV shows or Sports or NEWS or the like and don't get any of the newest cultural references or sound-bytes in normal everyday conversations.

Like it or not, this is our future, and it scares the shit out of me. Choice or not, all of this wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for science. Therin lies my distrust of anything that it is used for... with the solid exception of Astronomy and space exploration. I think it's a pity there is not a 1000% more public interest in it and tons more funding thrown at it every year. This is the single instance where I hope our government is spending massive amounts of our tax dollars behind our backs and covering it up. I already know they're doing that regardless.... it would just be nice if space exploration got a large chunk of it is all. My dream would be able to get off this rock and colonize another planet and start from scratch.....

even if in the end, I knew the Alliance would come and take it all back from us.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 16, 2007 10:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Perhaps it is businesses and politicians that should be entirely to blame for the evil things men do with science.

YES!

Quote:
I believe that science will be the device used to destroy mankind, or at least, everything that is good about mankind. It's all the same wheather we're wiped out in a global nuclear holocaust or if we're all successfully subdued and subjugated by a PAX-esque virus one day.

Of course it will, you can't subjugate the world with medieval technology, but it isn't the fault of science that people want to do so in the first place. The only way to prevent something like that is to either cease all scientific research or find some way to change human nature (PAX anyone?

)

Quote:
So, what is your answer then. I'm saying that science has run amok

I'd like you to provide some examples, I can't think of any.

Quote:
and though we may disagree on the way that I word this, I think we agree that there is a serious misuse and abuse of science in certain and important cases that needs to be addressed and prevented in the future.

The instances that come up are exceedingly rare and the only way to prevent them is to change human nature or cease researching. You could argue that we lock away the dangerous stuff, but who chooses who has access? I wouldn't trust you to allow enough people and you wouldn't trust me not to allow to many, who decides?

Quote:
I'm saying that there needs to be accountability

More than just here, but that is a social issue, accountability is on the decline because we as a society don't want to take responsibility for our actions. I would love to see a world where politicians and CEO's are held accountable but I'm not holding my breath.

Quote:
I dont' think the shrinking of the world due to the internet is a good thing.

Why not?

Quote:
I suppose if you're pro science you embrace change. I don't like change. I like comfort zones. I like things to be the way they were. My problem, I realize

It's understandable, but the problem is that lack of research would put us at a severe disadvantage when we get an airborne Ebola virus, or run out of oil, or can't produce enough food for our population, etc.

Quote:
As the world speeds up, I'm likely to become a dinosaur before I'm 35 years old.

At least you aren't a Trilobite

Quote:
Can we at least agree that there needs to be some action taken to prevent science from being used in the future against mankind and the will of the individual?

Sure, but I'm pretty sure that we will disagree on how.

The problem is how do you balance the protection of the individual versus the need for research? For instance you don't want anything that threatens the will of the individual, but what about the positive uses for mood-altering drugs like Prozac? Do we not allow research into mood-altering drugs because they MIGHT be used for evil purposes?

Quote:
I'm talking about a psychological holocaust as well as a physical one. Maybe you're a fan of everybody thinking like-minded, and I'm thinking you're not because you like Firefly, (unless, that is, you rooted for the Alliance the whole time) but I'm terrified about that.

Wait...we weren't supposed to be rooting for the Alliance?

Quote:
I'm not suggesting we go back to the horse and buggy, but I'd like for things to slow down a bit and for responsible decisions to be made where something a bit more practical and morale than the almighty dollar was the primary motivating factor

You can choose one of the following, a capitalist society or a society where money isn't the final concern. You can't have both (or at least not for long).

Quote:
I can't think of anything science has provided us with in the last 5 years which has benifited mankind....

Cervical cancer vaccine? dozens of drugs for the containment of previously uncontainable diseases? more efficient solar cells that will make it easy and cheap to provide your own power? cars that can parallel park themselves? a process for burning tires cleanly to produce electricity? hybrid cars that pollute less? give me a few hours and I can think of more.

Quote:
yet we have a ton of technological stuff, made in China, in the last 5 years that we just can't live without now.

Seee previous comments about consumption driven economy.

Quote:
You can argue high-speed internet and 50" plasma TV's are a boon if you like, but if anything, they only serve to alienate us even more from the people we're supposed to care about. I go to my dad's house now and they've got 5 TVs, 3 computers, 4 video game systems, and aside from the time my brothers, my dad, my step-mom and myself sit down for dinner, almost everybody goes back to their own room to veg out alone on whatever crap sparks their interests.... which is rarely the same thing. Now, I'll blame this on choice before anybody else does, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't. Freedom of choice is my thing man. I'm just hoping that people choose to be responsible and not let money and the easy-thought-free-life ruin everything in the end

This is a social issue that has become deeply ingrained in the last few decades, it would take a tidal shift for society to change to be the way that you want it and that isn't going to happen.

Quote:
People could say no and turn off their TV's, but they don't. People could say no to the Psychiatrists and teachers forcing pills down our children's throats, but they don't...Choice or not, all of this wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for science.

It sounds like your issue is with society, but you keep blaming it on science, science came around AFTER the social changes happened and filled in the desires of the people, if no one wanted or needed happy pills then they would have never been made, if no one wanted TV then it would have never been made, if no one wanted the Internet it would have never been made. You are blaming science for the social changes when the science was catalized by the social changes.

Quote:
My dream would be able to get off this rock and colonize another planet and start from scratch.....

Now if only we could agree on how that society should be designed...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:04 AM

I certainly do have an issue with society. I think only very naieve individuals today don't. This is, however beside the point.

Everything you say about the internet being needed before it was made is completely wrong. Nobody needed it, EVER. Not then, not now. We only THINK we need it now. We only need it because now that everyone else has it, you're at a disadvantage without it. The Government made it and brought it into our homes and now it's used to keeps tabs on us. There is no denying that this is happening and even President Bush doesn't deny that it is being done, though he lies to us and says that it's okay because it's only the "bad guys", save your tinfoil hat comments.

Have no illusions that somebody monitors this forum, especially because people who share my opinion come around. Every post I've ever written in here I would imagine is being read by somebody in a suit somewhere. I just don't talk about it all the time or freak out about it because there isn't a damn thing I could do about it anyhow. At the very least, any possibility of a political career in my future is completley shot.

(To the suit that's reading this: Here's a big

You. Have a nice day!)

The fact of the matter is that we are more honest with our computers than we are with anybody we know, which in turn means that the suits know more about me than I probably know about myself. Inhibitions are down online because nobody is face to face and nobody is trying to talk over each other at the same time so we say what we like. People pour their souls out in here, and on digg, and on MySpace, when they wouldn't even dream of going to the local mall and chatting complete strangers up about the same things.

I think it's really funny when people actually believe that when they mark that MySpace blog as private that they are really the only ones who can read them. As if the only way into our profiles is via our passwords. That's cute.

We can go from one board to another and based on different interests, we act completely different around another group of people, or at the very least we don't mention a lot of things to them that we would mention to people on the other board. We all do this in real life as well, as we converse with this clique or that clique, family or friends, ect... but the only one who knows how differently we act around seperate groups of people in real-life situations is ourselves, whereas on the internet, you leave an IP address footprint everytime you post a message, so even if nobody is watching you, there is always the ability to go back and see everything you've ever posted. Even deleted sites are archived. There's never been a sentence written and submitted on the internet by anyone that cannot be accessed. You might not be able to find it and get a "401" web-error, but you're foolish if you think that this hasn't been backed up and archived. The potential payback for archiving this information is priceless. Today it couldn't be used as admissable evidence in court in most cases, but just think about the arrests that could be made when this information is deemed all that is necessary for somebody to be guilty. We're talking, drug dealers, sexual perverts, child molesters, etc... all going down in flames for things they posted online 10 or 20 years ago. Sounds great, right?

Unfortunately the Government action won't stop there. When they ran out of REAL criminals, they'd start going after the morale crime of the week, such as illegal downloading of torrents or fines for posting clips of Firefly on YouTube. They wouldn't have done this 5 years ago because A) They were too busy going after real criminals and B)it would scare people away while they were still trying to get everyone using and eventually addicted to the internet. Now that most of us realize that we can't live without it and our children don't even believe us when we tell them that when we were in school we didn't have the internet, they are going to start coming after us. Sure, some of us might be strong enough to break away from the internet when that day comes, but it's already too late then. There are plenty of things we've posted that with a few clever ellipses (...) can make us look like pretty scummy humanbeings if O'Riley was to tell the world what scumbags we were.

This is no longer a world of "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about". Everyone is guilty of something, however big or small and because of this internet we all needed so much, we will all be found guilty of something.

NOBODY NEEDED ANY OF THIS.

As for mind altering drugs made in labs, the science came after the money, or the potential thereof, and NOT the NEED for them. Also, you are of the school that they are actually benificial to people, while I am of the school of thought that they simply there to mask symtoms of a supposed "problems", and to make people complacient and obedient, eliminating many potential problems at childbirth. As I said in my original post, these "problem" children were once valued assets to their local tribes or communities because of their superior intelligence and their ability to see things in a way that the sheep can't/won't understand. None of today's idiot soldiers became tribe elders. It's the kid on Ritalin that was a tribe leader. There is no room for people who question authority in suburbia today. There is only room for individuals who believe everything they see on the news and do exactly as they're told.

These people that the Government are so eager to drug are brilliant and no one will argue that point. If the system ever crumbles in on itself, you'd do well to find somebody just like that if you're going to survive very long when there isn't any money and aside from a few batteries here and there, a compass and a pair of binoculars, a very limited amount of science to go around. BTW... look out for that guy right behind you.

Doctors (the pushers) have become very good at simply taking orders and writing the prescriptions. The customers (users) choose what sounds good to them on TV when they're not happy and they make an appointment with their dealer. The HMOs and PPOs and such run the whole show and a doctor is a drug dealer with good bedside manner under the umbrella system they've developed between the medicinal practice and the drug companies.

Kids don't grow up needing alcahol, but many of them indulge, some of them become alcaholics, some of them crash and kill themselves and other people. They never NEEDED alcahol from the beginning, but it was there. More than that, nowandays, it is advertized with subliminals about booze = sex. I'm sorry, but people drink because it is laid out before them on a platter and they were told they needed it and it will help them get laid, be it through the advertizing or the peer pressure.

Along your lines of reasoning, perhaps it is the Government who has decided that these mind altering drugs are necessary and have funded their research. This would fit with your theory of need coming before science, but here again, is another example of science being used for evil. SOMEBODY NEEDS IT. NOT YOU OR ME, BUT SOMEBODY CALLS FOR IT. This is all government. Don't blame the sheeple who buy the ads that they need these drugs.

Your unwavering views on this are very much like those of the devout religous people. I think Science and Religion are much more similar than you think they are.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:28 AM

KHYRON

I'm curious as to what 7%'s take is on this, since as a teacher he must come in contact with both real and imagined cases of ADHD and ADD on a regular basis.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 7:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And on a related note... You have GOT to see this!!

Feb. 15 - A mock advertisement campaign for a fake disorder and its accompanying drug is mistaken by many to be real. The campaign on display in a New York City art gallery and on a website has far exceeded organizers expectations as thousands of people have contacted them seeking prescription information.

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=8818&src=cms

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 7:35 AM

CHRISISALL

I want it all, too!

That's unbelievable. "This Perfect Day" is right around the corner.

Signy, we are lost as a species.
I give up; let's all just praise Bush and take drugs.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:00 AM

CITIZEN

I'm reminded of a book I read called the self destruction syndrome. In it there was a subculture of people who rejected main stream society, called negatives. One of the more bizzare things was that they didn't take drugs of any kind, so in a way it was like the opposite of modern day drug culture, a reversal we seem to be moving ever closer towards.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:08 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL

Since you seem so intent on making me a leader of society...I accept. Now, does anyone want more internet? I think it's great.

Society and man is to blamed for the misuse of science. Research and science have helped many people live healthier and happier lives. What of people with celiac disease? There is a simple way to treat them, but without science, we would have never known that. The HPV vaccine, which was already pointed out to you, is a very exciting preventive measure. Advancements in weather detection allowed us to know Katrina was coming. Without that technology or the experts that interpreted it successfully, no one would have evacuated. It could have been much worse. Improving building materials and architecture science enables us to build structures that can withstand earthquakes. Science and research benefit us.

I trust my friends, neighbors, and family to tell me if I’m being drugged or brainwashed into submission...I'd tell them if I thought they were. I would argue that I’m more of a zombie without the help than I am with it.

Right, back to leading society...

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I certainly do have an issue with society. I think only very naieve individuals today don't. This is, however beside the point.

No, it isn't, the issue we keep coming back to is you pointing out a flaw in society and saying "science caused this". THAT is why I have to keep jumping in to defend science. If you point out a flaw in society and point to the REAL cause instead of just jumping to blame science then we can have an intelligent discussion about it.

Quote:
Everything you say about the internet being needed before it was made is completely wrong.

I didn't say that anyone needed it, I said they WANTED it. Enormous difference.

Quote:
Nobody needed it, EVER. Not then, not now. We only THINK we need it now.

ARPANET was created because the military wanted a method to transfer digital data between bases quickly. Universities picked it up because it was a pretty cool idea. The Uber-geeks in the colleges started to take it in to the world of the lesser geeks who thought it was really cool, and businesses picked it up because it was useful for the same reasons the military wanted it. As it sped up more uses were added to it until it became interesting to non-geeky people, once they became interested it turned into the Internet that we know today.

After the creation of ARPANET every expansion was driven by people who WANTED to try out the Internet, thus it was expanded to bring it to them.

Quote:
We only need it because now that everyone else has it, you're at a disadvantage without it.

E-mail takes a few seconds, snail mail takes a few days. If you go to a physical store you can buy whatever they have in stock, if you go to an internet store you can get almost anything you want. Without the Internet, if your favorite show gets cancelled you will have a hard time getting together with other fans to commiserate and voice your desire for more.

I understand your point, but the Internet does have real advantages.

Quote:
I just don't talk about it all the time or freak out about it because there isn't a damn thing I could do about it anyhow

I think I speak for everyone here when I say that we appreciate that.

Quote:
whereas on the internet, you leave an IP address footprint everytime you post a message, so even if nobody is watching you, there is always the ability to go back and see everything you've ever posted

That's stretching it pretty far, most places aren't going to keep IP logs for particularly long, anytime a server is replaced the log on that server isn't likely to be saved. And that is assuming that the server is set up to capture the logs in the first place, usually a good assumption, but not always true. Where I work we host our own website, in the not-to-distant future we will be swapping to a new server and the log on the old one will get formatted and disappear.

Quote:
Even deleted sites are archived. There's never been a sentence written and submitted on the internet by anyone that cannot be accessed. You might not be able to find it and get a "401" web-error, but you're foolish if you think that this hasn't been backed up and archived.

......

Do you have any idea how much storage space would be required for this? A hell of a lot. If they put it all on servers they would need enormous numbers of them to keep the data available. If they put it on tapes it would take huge amounts of time to actually find anything.

Quote:
Unfortunately the Government action won't stop there. When they ran out of REAL criminals, they'd start going after the morale crime of the week, such as illegal downloading of torrents or fines for posting clips of Firefly on YouTube. They wouldn't have done this 5 years ago because A) They were too busy going after real criminals and B)it would scare people away while they were still trying to get everyone using and eventually addicted to the internet.

Ever heard of the War On Drugs? It's been going on for decades and it's exactly what you are saying here. Also it was more than 5 years ago when Napster was shut down and people have been getting constantly sued at every point since for file-sharing.

Quote:
NOBODY NEEDED ANY OF THIS.

But they wanted it, it came and grew because it allowed people to do things that they wanted to do.

Quote:
As for mind altering drugs made in labs, the science came after the money, or the potential thereof, and NOT the NEED for them.

Depression, sometimes psychological in nature, sometimes chemical, has existed for a long time. Many people could probably be helped by therapy, but that is a long and expensive process. It is much easier and cheaper just to give them pills. The pills are likely heavily overprescribed, but that is because a lot of psychologists are going to give their patients drugs if their patient asks. Why? Simple, if they don't their patients will find someone who will.

Quote:
Also, you are of the school that they are actually benificial to people, while I am of the school of thought that they simply there to mask symtoms of a supposed "problems"

They have an undisputable ability to help people, if they are used for other purposes it is unfortunate, but it does not change the fact that they can make people who can't function in society functional again. Let's leave anti-depressants and Ritalin for a moment, how about the array of anti-psychotic drugs? Or drugs for anxiety disorders? These are mood-altering drugs that render people that are either non-functional in society, or an outright danger to society able to funtion again.

Quote:
As I said in my original post, these "problem" children were once valued assets to their local tribes or communities because of their superior intelligence and their ability to see things in a way that the sheep can't/won't understand.

But now that intelligence is useless unless it can be focused. It doesn't matter if I'm the smartest person in the world if I get distracted everytime something shiny catches my eye. In the tribal world you are talking about occasional flashes of extreme intelligence might be enough to pay their way, but now it takes more than an occasional insight to pay the bills. Should everyone who shows glimmers of ADD be medicated? No, but there are many people who cannot function in a business setting unless they are medicated.

Quote:
It's the kid on Ritalin that was a tribe leader

Disagree, someone without the ability to pay attention for long periods wouldn't be able to effectively lead a group of people. They might be an advisor whose intelligence compensates for their shortcomings, but as a leader they would probably fail.

Quote:
If the system ever crumbles in on itself, you'd do well to find somebody just like that if you're going to survive very long when there isn't any money and aside from a few batteries here and there, a compass and a pair of binoculars, a very limited amount of science to go around

Personally I'd rather have someone who can focus absolutely to watch my back, having someone standing guard who gets distracted easily isn't a good idea. In a post-apocalyptic world strength and endurance will be more valuable than intelligence, though a severe deficiency in intelligence will likely be fatal in short order.

Quote:
Doctors (the pushers) have become very good at simply taking orders and writing the prescriptions. The customers (users) choose what sounds good to them on TV when they're not happy and they make an appointment with their dealer

People want simple easy solutions to their problems, thus drugs that make problems go away are made. Science is use to fill a desire of the people, if the people didn't want them they wouldn't exist.

Quote:
Kids don't grow up needing alcahol, but many of them indulge, some of them become alcaholics, some of them crash and kill themselves and other people. They never NEEDED alcahol from the beginning, but it was there. More than that, nowandays, it is advertized with subliminals about booze = sex. I'm sorry, but people drink because it is laid out before them on a platter and they were told they needed it and it will help them get laid, be it through the advertizing or the peer pressure.

Alcohol became a staple of society a LONG time ago, back when drinking water near a town was risking your life. It is unfotunate the amount of emphasis that is placed on alcohol in modern
life, but the booze companies make it, so they have to sell it to someone. And the sex sells thing works nearly as well on adults as kids.

Quote:
Along your lines of reasoning, perhaps it is the Government who has decided that these mind altering drugs are necessary and have funded their research

Some of them perhaps, most of them would have been made because a drug company saw a chance to make money.

Quote:
This would fit with your theory of need coming before science, but here again, is another example of science being used for evil. SOMEBODY NEEDS IT. NOT YOU OR ME, BUT SOMEBODY CALLS FOR IT

I don't see how this is evil, a chronically depressed person needs medication and the scientist is evil for developing it? a kid in school can't focus for long enough to read a basic math problem, a scientist figures out a way to let them focus well enough to suceed in life and that's evil?

Quote:
This is all government. Don't blame the sheeple who buy the ads that they need these drugs

Nooooo, that's business, the drug companies make a drug for the people who really need it, then market it to the people who could kinda benefit from it but don't really need it.

Quote:
Your unwavering views on this are very much like those of the devout religous people.

If religion was based on fact then you would be right, as is I'll take this as an insult. Your unwavering views on this are also very much like a devout religious person, only you have nothing but the opinon that science is at fault to back you up.

Quote:
I think Science and Religion are much more similar than you think they are.

Heard this argument before, still makes no sense. Science is based on empirical observation of the world, conclusions are altered to fit the evidence at hand. Religion is based on stories and opinions, and the facts are altered to fit the conclusions. That some people believe absolutely in either is true, but that is the only real link between the two.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

6String- I'm glad you explained your views in more detail. My comment is "Yes... but "

"Yes..." I think that a defense of science that rests on the notion "Science would be perfect if only it wasn't corrupted by money and people" is like "Religion would be perfect if only it wasn't corrupted by money and people". The difference between science and religion is that science is actually effective at predicting and controlling the forces that religion only pretends to. In some ways, science is more problematic than religion just because it si more powerful.

"Yes..." Science - or at least technology- DOES follow the money. Billions are spent developing "lifestyle" drugs (Viagra, statins, weight loss) because that's what rich people pay for while poor people and orphan diseases are untreated. Not only does science follow money, it follows our most deeply-held assumptions, prejudices, and limitations. ("The Mismeasure of Man" Stephen Jay Gould)

"Yes..."there is somtimes a dichotomy between what society needs and what people need.

"But..." just because society has it's own agenda does not mean that people don't have real needs. While I think our society should have more places for different personalities and capabilities, people also suffer physical and mental anguish that isn't going to be solved by changing society.

And at the same time, the pressure to conform- to sit still, to learn, to be agreeable, compliant, and believe the ads despite a miserable daily life- is not being enforced by "the government". It is really being compelled by economic forces- corporations, big money. Resting the blame on "government" is like laying the blame on "science"- it's misdirected.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:10 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Science is a tool, nothing more.

A very very powerful tool, and prone to misuse as any tool, but neutral in and of itself.

Like a gun, it's a tool powerful enough to be frightening, in spite of it's own neutrality and some people react to that, or to it's influance on those who use it.

While science has given us many wonderful things, it's also given us many more headaches and miseries as well, as the luddites would be so quick to remind us.

I think Jack's alluding to having such science as a similar principle.

"When you have a big hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail."

Not every problem can be solved by science, nor is technology often a wise or effective solution - we have all these wonderful toys, but if you were to take them away tomorrow...

Would we still have each other ?

Or have we so distanced ourselves from our humanity with these "advancements" that we're just isolated individuals in a geographical locale ?

I think that's what's bothering Jack, he just seems to be having trouble getting it across.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I think Jack's alluding to having such science as a similar principle.

"When you have a big hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail."

Not every problem can be solved by science, nor is technology often a wise or effective solution - we have all these wonderful toys, but if you were to take them away tomorrow...

Would we still have each other ?

Or have we so distanced ourselves from our humanity with these "advancements" that we're just isolated individuals in a geographical locale ?

I believe that we would adapt, just like we always have. Right now we are isolated individuals, but if we lost the ability to use technology to entertain us and provide us with social contact then we would revert to our neighbors. It would be a slow painful process, but it would happen.

Also, let me tell you a little about my situation, I live in a town filled with rednecks, druggies and old people, I am none of these. Without technology to connect me to others that share my interests I would likely almost never speak to anyone. Technology has allowed me to reach out and find people with similar interests and meet with them. I am not alone in this regard. On the Farscape bulletin board (the Sci-Fi channel one from when the show was still on) there was a guy who was basically bedridden constantly because of an injury, without technology to connect him to the world he wold have been virtually alone all the time, not to mention that he probably wouldn't have survived his injury.

Technology has allowed us to move beyond borders and geographical constrictions, consider a world where everybody knew everybody, where no matter country we were invading you had friends there, would you support wars or policies that could hurt your friends? Would they support actions that could hurt you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:52 PM

SIRI

ADHD and pills. Couldn't decide if I wanted to get into this one or not. As someone who has worked with kids and their families for quite a few years, I've had some experience and have some thoughts on the topic.

First of all all so-called psychiatric disorders are simply a cluster of symptoms that affect people's lives and are given a name or classification. Symptoms of ADHD manifest in different ways. It becomes a disorder if and when it impacts their lives in a negative fashion, i.e., problems at home, at school or work and/or in society. If it's not a problem in those areas then it's assumed the individual can cope even if there are some deviations from so-called normal behavior. No diagnosis, no docs, no drugs.

Second, a lot of the docs handing out the ADHD drugs are not child psychiatrists but family docs and pediatricians who may or may not have much background or training in psychiatric problems. They are given lots of samples and promos by the drug reps.

Third, frequently it's the schools who tell parents to get their kids on something to control their behavior or they can't come back to school. I saw that happen quite often.

Fourth, the parents often demand the kids be put on meds. I have frequently seen the child psychiatrist counsel parents not to put their kids on drugs and even fight with the schools about it.

Finally, as a counselor I would try to help families learn to parent their kids to deal with the behavior rather than use drugs. They often didn't want to do that because they didn't have time or chose not to take the time. And most of the schools were in the same category.

I do believe it is a real disorder and meds can be useful but need to be carefully monitored. Counseling or at least a parenting class to help parents change the way they respond can also be beneficial. Fish oil may be beneficial. We have some docs that recommend it. However, too much fish oil makes them shit like geese and the parents get pretty freaked out by that, too.

Siri

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I've been away for awhile.

Chris, is all

I feel for your father. In my experience, ADHD isn't just a set of behaviors, it's a type of internal, infernal noise noise NOISE that scrambles you, and causes a great deal of internal stress. I remember one instance in my life where I did focus on something and the noise went away (or maybe it was the other way around) and it was sheer bliss. Perhaps your father has had a similar experience and he's trying to find a way back there again.

And maybe that state is unusual for anyone - the extreme opposite of ADHD where no one lives but even normal people spend many hours in meditation trying to get there.

If that's what he's doing, though, I can understand why he craves the end of the noise and the state of clarity and focus.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

If I weren't an identical twin I'd say that ADD/ADHD is just part of a spectrum of human function. But I have ADHD and visual processing errors, and my twin most definitely does not. So I tend to think 'normal' genetics were there, but something went awry. That's another reason (albeit one unique to me) why I believe ADD/ ADHD is an error, not part of normal developoment.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:48 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

6-string,

Science is (mostly) funded by government, but products are made by corporations who have a vested interest.

On a somewhat related note, it occurred to me that government is not the 'big evil', capitalism is.

One problem is that capitalism is based on more. There is nothing inherent in the system that says STOP at any point. At the very best, capitalism is a full-throttle train of getting us more but also using up the earth.

The other problem with capitalism is that it very literally doesn't account for anything except 'private goods'. There are things like social harmony, or 'the commons' like air and climate, which we all depend on for our very lives. But they are not incorporated into the economic model of 'capitalism', and because they are 'cost-free' they get used up and ruined.

And sadly we have been led to use capitalism as a social model rather than an economic one, and it doesn't work as a social model. Capitalism is about individual competition at all levels for more. Human society OTOH is frequently about cooperation and mutualism, and those good human inborn feelings of trust and care. Using capitalism as a model for society is why society is so 'effed up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
On a somewhat related note, it occurred to me that government is not the 'big evil', capitalism is.

COMMUNIST!!!!!!!!!

Quote:
One problem is that capitalism is based on more. There is nothing inherent in the system that says STOP at any point. At the very best, capitalism is a full-throttle train of getting us more but also using up the earth.

The other problem with capitalism is that it very literally doesn't account for anything except 'private goods'. There are things like social harmony, or 'the commons' like air and climate, which we all depend on for our very lives. But they are not incorporated into the economic model of 'capitalism', and because they are 'cost-free' they get used up and ruined.

And sadly we have been led to use capitalism as a social model rather than an economic one, and it doesn't work as a social model. Capitalism is about individual competition at all levels for more. Human society OTOH is frequently about cooperation and mutualism, and those good human inborn feelings of trust and care. Using capitalism as a model for society is why society is so 'effed up.

Exactly, Rue you said it perfectly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:10 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm a communist? Oh, OK.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm a communist? Oh, OK.

Yes, because anyone who doesn't accept the absolute supremancy of capitalism in any and every circumstance is a dirty, filthy, godless, evil, red, freedom-hating, COMMUNIST!!!!!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:35 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Then I must have signed up at some point when I thought I was just signing a petition at the grocery store entrance.

I'd have a problem with the 'dirty, filthy' part tho 'cause I like my showers and clean teeth and clothes. I guess I'll need to change my thinking from agnostic to aetheist. And if I'm to be evil I should stop taking care of family and frieneds when they need it. And I'm not red, I'm more of a pinkish-beige shade. I guess I'll have to do something about that. Plus I'll have to praise Bush, GITMO, the US PATRIOT Act and everywhere freedom is curbed, which really would irk me.

Man, this being a "dirty, filthy, godless, evil, red, freedom-hating, COMMUNIST" is hard work !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:37 PM

Signym - Thank you for your post. This is the first reasonable argument that I have heard in here from the other side, and I was quite frankly getting a little scared of the science types basically telling me that nothing is science's fault and that even though there is no arguements that science will likely end society one way or another, this was simply attributed to human nature in such a cavalier way that it chills me to the bones.

I would think that at least a small minority of the world's brightest minds would be there trying to make sure that this doesn't happen. A sort of checks and balances, if you will. Just the fact that somebody as reasonable as you is here to say your piece gives me hope here that maybe there are some people who have a few scruples and will do what they can to ensure that science won't be used by man against mankind.

Frem - Where would I be without ya? Why are you the only person that understands me in here? Are my ideas so scrambled and all over the map that I just don't convey my opinions correctly. I was thinking that everyone in here was bullheaded and arrogant, but perhaps I just have a hard time getting my point across because I'm seeing so many things happen from so many different angles from outside of the box that it's impossible for me to be concise about it. Perhaps this is my shortcomming.

Anyhow.... I think that post was beautiful. I don't think I could have ever summed up my stance on science like that in under 150 words, and for that, I thank you.

Rue - Hey! Every once and a while we do agree on things and I'm happy to say that I can't find anything that you just said to argue about. I wouldn't say I'm a communist, but I'm pretty damned fed up with Capitalism myself. The lie that we can all strike it rich, when really it's just a tool used to keep all of the money in the fewest hands possible. Perhaps my views on science would be much different in a society that wasn't as greedy and materialistic as ours. If it were in the hands of leaders the people could trust to govern its applications.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 4:45 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

6String- I keep noodling about human social behavior. There are a few consistent trends. Game theory has some things to say too. But our failures as a species and as a society isn't moral failing, just as ADHD isn't (always) a phantom diagnosis and isn't (always) ammenable to willpower.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 5:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...But our failures as a species and as a society isn't moral failing, just as ADHD isn't (always) a phantom diagnosis and isn't (always) ammenable to willpower.

Our failures as a species isn't (always) a moral failing.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 5:56 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Signym - Thank you for your post. This is the first reasonable argument that I have heard in here from the other side, and I was quite frankly getting a little scared of the science types basically telling me that nothing is science's fault

6ix, science is our religion, not that carpenter and his vengeful father!!!! You wanna blame someone, blame youself, you science-hating, chemical fearing, anti-technologist!!! Grab a club and start beating your females to drag them back to your f**king cave, you dumb biped!!!!

P.S., just kidding- I didn't want ya to miss the contentiousness and ad-hominem attacks the RWED has become SO famous for, heh heh.

Science is a tool, and so is Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh!

Uhhh ... let me try ...

Chrisisall,

why just look at your name, you must think you're such a universal know-it-all science smarty-pants ... uhhh (man this is tough) ...

whatEVER

that didn't go well

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:18 PM

Ha! I thought you were serious for a minute and then I realized that you're just way too good natured to say such things.... and then I read the Just Kidding.

And just like Science and Religion, we're all just a bunch of tools. You're in good company. Some of us are more useful than others, and some are just broke.

Don't worry about me missing the contentiousness and ad-hominem attacks the RWED has become SO famous for. I believe that I've been right in the thick of that for the last couple of weeks.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
basically telling me that nothing is science's fault

Science is a tool nothing more, it is uncaring unfeeling and incapable of acting on its own, science holds no blame because (like a gun) it requires a PERSON to wield it. Science holds no fault in the actions of people, yet because of your pre-existing prejudices you refuse to look past the tool and adress the root of the problem. You would not blame a gun for shooting someone, yet you blame science when PEOPLE use it to negative ends, yet again and again you say that science is at fault for the problems of the world. And if you want to argue that we have gun laws to keep guns away from criminals, remember that our gun laws utterly fail to do so and only serve to inconvienience people who want them for legitimate purposes.

Quote:
maybe there are some people who have a few scruples and will do what they can to ensure that science won't be used by man against mankind.

This is (at least one of the reasons) why we don't sell the secrets to making nuclear bombs or chemical weapons to who ever wants them. Believe it or not the VAST majority of the people in charge don't want to have a holocaust on their hands.

This seems to be the fundamental disconnect, you seem to think that everyone who has knowledge (this "Science" you keep talking about) wants to use it against mankind, but that simply isn't true, the vast majority of people with access to the powerful destructive tools that exist do NOT want to use them and do NOT want anyone else to have them.

Quote:
Perhaps my views on science would be much different in a society that wasn't as greedy and materialistic as ours. If it were in the hands of leaders the people could trust to govern its applications.

Good luck with that, I know you don't like to hear it but human nature won't let you have the world you want without radical changes. In every civilization there MUST be a governmental structure, the problem is that the people who seek out power are the exact type of people that you don't want in charge. The only solution is to either eliminate knowledge or change human nature (PAX anyone?).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 9:06 PM

Nice protection there skippy. Everybody has a bomb.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
This seems to be the fundamental disconnect, you seem to think that everyone who has knowledge (this "Science" you keep talking about) wants to use it against mankind, but that simply isn't true, the vast majority of people with access to the powerful destructive tools that exist do NOT want to use them and do NOT want anyone else to have them.

This is your problem and your misinterpretation of what I've said. Frem stated my case very nicely for me and I'm not arguing it any further with you.

I ask for accountability and I ask for people to use their goddamned heads when playing with fire such as this and you say "that's human nature" and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Now I say to that, and to anyone with that attitude, GO TO HELL. I truly hope your science experiments blow you up and every scientist who thinks that way before it's too late.

I'm okay with Science if it's used responsibly, same goes for guns.

END OF DISCUSSION. BYE NOW!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:54 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

This is not on topic. But, to go with the flow - science is not responsible for how society uses science, society is.

It's like that culture at Mohenjo Daro - they used agriculture and tool making well, whereas most other cultures used them badly. Do we blame agriculture and tools, or the society that uses them?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:43 AM

VINCENOIRROCKNROLLSTAR

if every school were given the book by jack herer `the emporer wears no clothes` then a lot of social changes would be forthcoming ..the book if noone knows deals with the issue of hemp and its uses in the past present and future ..recent research shows that children and their behaviour is down to the varying degrees of omega 3/6/9 oils ..give the child a good source of these oils and their behaviour changes for the better ..give them diet drinks and plenty of sugar and they become aggressive un-attentionable hooligans (for the most part ).this is were the knowledge of hemp comes into play ,for years now governments of the world have led us to believe that cannabis is the devils drug and has no use in society today ..wrong its possibly the most useful plant (not drug)its seeds contain the most useful and plentiful sources of all three omega oils and amino acids available to humans (always as done) by changing our kids diets to include this we would expect to see great advances in behaviour,learning and social enhancement ..as for the use of the plant as a drug well i think were all pretty clear that it is useful for many ailments .but contrary to popular science cannabis in trials has proven to be a very useful drug in the growth of new brain cells and especially useful in the treatment of strokes (it can repair neuro pathways destroyed by the stroke ).now ask yourselves why so many neurotoxins have been introduced into our diets by such companies as `nutra sweet` coca cola ,mc donalds etc (usually with ceos with some connection to the american government ..i.e rumsfeld and his cronies who are also being paid in various shares options from these companies to get these products into the packed lunches of the worlds children)..can you see the bigger picture ? thats right folks they are gradually turning us all into test tubes for their laboratories ...get back to nature ,get hemp in your diet ..get well ...oh and hemp oil is the best source of nutrition to fight adhd (recent trials by gw pharmaceuticals prove this hands down ,but you try getting the documents from them ..no chance). there are currently at least 20 doctors worldwide who have been threatened with being struck off for stating that adhd is not a real disorder and that it is solely attributed to chemical ingestion via food (if i could find the links i`d post them ,but i just had a can of coke and cant think straight!)

shoot the moon ...shoooooot the mooon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:42 AM

KANEMAN

I would agree with 6ixstring on this. There are way to many children taking meds for a disease that may or may not ex......Ooh look a moth! What a pretty little moth. God I am starving. I wonder what I have in the frid....Fridgidair what kind of name is that? Fat rhymes with that, also cat..Cats are lions, or are lions cats? Courage is overrated. Must wash my iguana. I don't have one. One two three four five six. A B C D E F G H I J K.....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 18, 2007 7:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
your misinterpretation of what I've said

What can I say? You make it really, really easy.

Quote:
I ask for accountability

The word that makes politicians tremble. I think there is far more accountability than you realize but I agree that more would be nice.

Quote:
and I ask for people to use their goddamned heads when playing with fire such as this

You will notice that we haven't had a global holocaust yet? That's because they do use their heads.

Quote:
I'm okay with Science if it's used responsibly

It is.

Quote:
BYE NOW!

Let's not say goodbye, but rather, see you soon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 19, 2007 3:24 AM

KHYRON

Somehow, somewhere, someone will say that science is evil and is oppressing all of us for doing this. Maybe that'll even happen in this very thread!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6369347.stm

Evil witchcraft such as this must not go unpunished! Burn all the scientists at the stake!

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 19, 2007 7:11 AM

CITIZEN

Well extrapolating an argument against genetics on another subject:

This is just a blatent attempt to produce a cure for people with Autism. Autism is a choice, and you genetic Nazis just want to force the correct choice on Autistics!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:11 PM

Very interesting post VINCENOIRROCKNROLLSTAR. Just another example of how poorly science is utilized, particularly in this country. Test results are sold to the highest bidder and truth in science is controlled, just as truth in history and social studies is controlled by the people who control our politicians and the media. It's a sad state of affairs. I guess I'm just saying that I think we were all in a better place when they didn't have such a firm grasp on technologies most laypeople don't understand and will become slaves to.

Long live math. May they never make us believe that 2 + 2 = 5!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 22, 2007 10:08 AM

VINCENOIRROCKNROLLSTAR

does that explain why i can`t set my dvd recorder to record late night poker?

shoot the moon ...shoooooot the mooon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:38 PM