|
Samurai Sanders posted:Actually the first thing that came to mind for me is the implied argument that alcohol doesn't cause brain damage. Well, almost all of Investor's Business Daily's readers are high powered white male executives. In their world, alcohol is harmless and weed is that stupid liberal hippy drug. None of their readers are going to say "Hey, alcohol is actually worse than weed!" They already agree with Ramirez. Mister Beeg posted:Another Mad Magazine strip that Ted Rall drew. From #457 (September 2005) I'm pretty sure we saw like three Starfleet Nursing Homes.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
And the media would be 100% correct. AGC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
IF GLOBAL WARMING WHY COLD!?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
I really love that while the usual morons are going on about how cold it is, in the Southern Hemisphere Australia is experiencing a record-breaking heatwave this Summer, but Tinsley et al just can't understand that "global warming" is in fact a global phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
Oh god I was wrong, he's going to keep doing prediction comics while ranting about global warming for the rest of January.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Oh god I was wrong, he's going to keep doing prediction comics while ranting about global warming for the rest of January. Next week is the 50th anniversary of LBJ declaring a War on Poverty. I wonder if Tinsley will spend a week blathering about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Both of the UCLA studies (the nicotine and sugar links) have massive validity problems and are being inflated by those articles, which are basically advertising press releases. Just to start, analogy to humans from animal models on this kind of research is massively irresponsible without better etiology documentation. Nicotine probably does cause brain damage, sugar almost certainly does not in any meaningful way. So just to clarify, you think alcohol should be prohibited.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Mister Beeg posted:Next week is the 50th anniversary of LBJ declaring a War on Poverty. I wonder if Tinsley will spend a week blathering about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Mister Beeg posted:Another Mad Magazine strip that Ted Rall drew. From #457 (September 2005) After reading this comic, I honestly have no idea how much Todd knows about Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:So just to clarify, you think alcohol should be prohibited. I think people shouldn't drink. A law banning alcohol would be counterproductive. I favor education policies and regulations that discourage alcohol use and shift societal norms against it, much like we're trying to do with tobacco. Getting society to a point where alcohol is disfavored enough to be phased out would, of course, take about 800 years of global-level policy effort, but I think it's something worth shooting for. At a minimum, it'd be nice to implement policies targeting industrial practices and social norms that accelerate harmful use patterns like "21 for 21," and the use of drunkenness as sexual lubricant, but my primary interest is addiction, not other outcomes. As a caveat, addiction rates and mechanisms for alcohol appear different from other banned substances, although this may partially be an artifact of its prevalent and socially accepted use. There is, for example, better documentation of genetic mechanisms that massively increase vulnerability to alcohol dependence, although that doesn't map directly to addiction. In this very limited sense, legal alcohol might be less harmful than legal marijuana. To my knowledge, there aren't any clinically interesting predictors of marijuana addiction, which makes it harder to work against with public policy in a setting where it's legal. Mister Beeg posted:Another Mad Magazine strip that Ted Rall drew. From #457 (September 2005) Given how Next Gen gave us material on how starfleet operated various other things in an interesting speculative fiction way, I'd kinda like to see how any of these processes worked. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Mister Beeg posted:Another Mad Magazine strip that Ted Rall drew. From #457 (September 2005) Check out hardcore-liberal & noted non-racist Tad Rool's jab at affirmative action programs in the background of panel three.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Oh god I was wrong, he's going to keep doing prediction comics while ranting about global warming for the rest of January. The rest of the year
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Predictions for 2014: [list of things that already happened in the year]
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Aside from the basic rule of not trusting UCLA study results. It's one of several universities that herald every .8 alpha result as the cure for cancer. I'm assuming there's a typo or something, but I'm legitimately curious what you meant by ".8 alpha result". I do know what alpha is, but .8 makes no sense. Also, isn't what's to blame here whatever UCLA department sends out the hyperbolic press releases, and not the studies themselves? Discendo Vox posted:As a caveat, addiction rates and mechanisms for alcohol appear different from other banned substances, although this may partially be an artifact of its prevalent and socially accepted use. There is, for example, better documentation of genetic mechanisms that massively increase vulnerability to alcohol dependence, although that doesn't map directly to addiction. In this very limited sense, legal alcohol might be less harmful than legal marijuana. To my knowledge, there aren't any clinically interesting predictors of marijuana addiction, which makes it harder to work against with public policy in a setting where it's legal. I'm sorry, but what's your logic here? I can't make heads or tails of this. The harm of legalizing a substance depends on how well-documented the addiction mechanisms are? Are you assuming that a disadvantage of legalization is increased use, and we can mitigate that disadvantage by public policy? And in the case of alcohol, we can better do so because of more research? Isn't that ignoring that the quality and quantity of research depends on legal status, and that there's no evidence that use rates are correlated with legal status at all (for alcohol or marijuana)? I don't know why you would say "less harmful" given that you think prohibiting alcohol would be counterproductive. It seems to me regulation in a legal framework is more effective for alcohol than for marijuana primarily due to society's long experience with the former (legal regulation of alcohol). But compared to under prohibition... the ease of working against any addiction with public policy is astronomical, regardless of clinically-interesting predictors or any other research. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
 The continuing adventures of Day by Penis
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
I personally would favor year-round predictions from the duck. The predictions are akin to the Platonic Ideal of Tinsley cartoons.SurgicalOntologist posted:I'm assuming there's a typo or something, but I'm legitimately curious what you meant by ".8 alpha result". I do know what alpha is, but .8 makes no sense. SurgicalOntologist posted:I'm sorry, but what's your logic here? I can't make heads or tails of this. The harm of legalizing a substance depends on how well-documented the addiction mechanisms are? Are you assuming that a disadvantage of legalization is increased use, and we can mitigate that disadvantage by public policy? And in the case of alcohol, we can better do so because of more research? The harm of a legalized substance can be partially mitigated if we can direct public policy efforts toward susceptible populations- so knowing that a set of markers makes some populations vulnerable to alcohol addiction allows you to do things like more easily justify banning alcohol sales on tribal lands, to raise something that came up in the thread earlier. A major element I left unsaid here is that mechanistic research into banned substances isn't as constrained as direct clinical testing is. The lack of interesting/useful predictors for marijuana addiction is raised because as far as we can tell, there aren't any- there are no mechanical predictors for marijuana addiction susceptibility, so You're right, I shouldn't assume increased use as a consequence of legalization, although I'm frankly going to be astonished if that doesn't occur- we're going to at least see a short-term increase in experimentation, and some of those people will become addicts. I'm really glad I'm not on an IRB in any of these states, it's going be a nightmare for them. In terms of my moral calculus on regulation and use, I've gotta emphasize that for me, addiction is very nearly a zero-sum Bad Thing- and so my long term policy goal is always going to be modifying the substance or users so addiction doesn't occur (unlikely), or diminishing exposure to the addictive substance. Legalization is never going to be a step in that direction unless some really strange parameters are built into the scenario. Thanks for not jumping on me about this- the last time I effortposted on addiction research/policy I got a lot of  talking points from folks who pretty clearly didn't know confidence intervals from casuistry ethics. I don't wanna derail the thread again- maybe messages?Tom Guycot posted:The continuing adventures of Day by Penis Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
Tom Guycot posted:
I had always thought that the nonsensical dialogue of DbD was in fact encrypted messages that only Muir knew how to read properly. But you cracked the code, dude. You have given me the cipher and now I see with eyes unclouded. Also, penii.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Do cockroaches really come out en masse from shower drains like that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Do cockroaches really come out en masse from shower drains like that? If you shine a light where they're hiding, they will run every direction trying to get away from it. I'd imagine if you did that and the other end led to water they would in fact try to get out the dry route, though I've never seen a drain filthy enough to check with and never want to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
I know it probably won't happen, but I want to see a political cartoon here about this. Come on, there are dozens of (mostly awful) political metaphors to be made from a rabbit in Nelson Mandela's ear!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Do cockroaches really come out en masse from shower drains like that? Cockroaches in general can typically stay alive fully submerged for long periods of time, and they exhibit swarm behavior - where one will follow the chemical trail left by another in order to find food/water - when in groups. They also like to congregate in covered drains/septic tanks or generally dark and damp areas. So yes, it's feasible that if a number of cockroaches made their way in through a drain or toilet, that many others would follow. But where I live I never see cockroaches so I've never had that problem. Recluse spiders also seem to love sink and shower drains. Regarding the cartoon it's probably a bad analogy. Maybe a manhole cover or something would have worked better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
Streaker Sam needs to be an avatar. My soul calls for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
Not exactly a political cartoon, but certainly a compelling argument against art. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
To chime in, here in Southern California we are in the middle of the driest winter on record. Since 95% of rainfall occurs during our winters this means by extension it's also pretty much shaping up to be the driest year on record. We are getting wildfires breaking out in the middle of January. That is really, really hosed up. So yes Tinsley, I will definitely remember Winter 2013/2014 as another sign of Global Warming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
Local douche bag attorney (redundant) sues blog for over $25000. The libelous blog post. quote:But the trees at 802 are on private property. There's no rezoning afoot; no widening of Stewart Road; no tax dollars spent taking them down; no apparent intersection with City Hall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:I'm pretty sure we saw like three Starfleet Nursing Homes. Everybody knows that the Enterprise only has a single toilet, too. Don't think Rall did his homework on this one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
Acid Haze posted:Not exactly a political cartoon, but certainly a compelling argument against art. Funnily enough Ramirez does his own, to put it lightly, fair share of agonizing and shouting at the American judicial system. And funnily enough it's only when a minority does not go to jail. Something something hypocrisy. something something im frothing at the mouth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:GBS 2.0 is significantly less useful for finding out about current events, so I keep up with the news through political cartoons (and they're posted here earlier than where I used to check them). Thanks to this thread, I am an unstoppable tank at the Slate quizzes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
While it barely scraped 32 yesterday, it was 61 two days ago so please eat your next helping of duck food out of the barrel of a shotgun
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I personally would favor year-round predictions from the duck. The predictions are akin to the Platonic Ideal of Tinsley cartoons. I'm sure Tinsely would favor it too. He can basically flat-out write the messages he wants to without having to find a "clever" way to integrate it into "art."
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
 The Ukraine is a failed state that should be destroyed, its territory fairly distributed among Russia and the Union. A Treaty of Riga cartoon.   "10 cm bullet proof glass. Just in case."
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
A character struggles inwardly with the push and pull of many complicated factors. A Smeagol Cartoon? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
 I can't tell if this is more stupid or just differently stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:
What the Christ is this? Did Stantis/Allie have a stroke before they wrote/drew this cartoon? (or after?  )
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That .8 is nonsensical is the point-you'd really want something higher if you're using it in lab work. I thought you meant significance level--do you mean Cronbach's alpha? If that's the case your comments make your sense. I wasn't aware that Cronbach's alpha was commonly used outside psychometrics. Discendo Vox posted:You're right, I shouldn't assume increased use as a consequence of legalization, although I'm frankly going to be astonished if that doesn't occur- we're going to at least see a short-term increase in experimentation, and some of those people will become addicts. You know, we actually have data on this, for a number of recreational drugs, including alcohol and marijuana, as well as for other things like abortion. And it seems that legalization and decriminalization actually tends to reduce use rates across the board. And it especially reduces addiction rates since the proportion of casual users who become addicts is lowered. Discendo Vox posted:I'm really glad I'm not on an IRB in any of these states, it's going be a nightmare for them. In terms of my moral calculus on regulation and use, I've gotta emphasize that for me, addiction is very nearly a zero-sum Bad Thing- and so my long term policy goal is always going to be modifying the substance or users so addiction doesn't occur (unlikely), or diminishing exposure to the addictive substance. Legalization is never going to be a step in that direction unless some really strange parameters are built into the scenario. That logic makes some sense until you realize... compared to what? You can examine legalization in a vacuum and come to this conclusion, but the "strange parameters" built into the scenario are that prohibition is immensely harmful, not only with regard to the criminal and economical issues of supporting a black market, but also on the public health side, with regard to both the addiction rates and the particular harms caused by said addiction. I mean, if criminalization could entirely eliminate exposure, your "moral calculus" might have a point, but if we're going to be practical about it we need to realize that that's impossible. If exposure's going to happen anyway, maybe controlling the nature of that exposure could make a huge difference. And that's what legalization does: it gives public health experts some say in how that exposure occurs, rather than pushing it underground, out of reach of public-health regulation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:I thought you meant significance level--do you mean Cronbach's alpha? If that's the case your comments make your sense. I wasn't aware that Cronbach's alpha was commonly used outside psychometrics. We have a thread for people like you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Thanks for not jumping on me about this- the last time I effortposted on addiction research/policy I got a lot of No, it's because your reasoning for banning marijuana could have applied to literally any item that causes a reward center response in the brain, but keep on attacking the character of your detractors instead of countering their position.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:45
|
|
