Leaderboard

I asked a sincere question and I’m here to learn. I assumed you being the forum chemistry expert you could lend a hand. And yes, since you’re the chemistry expert - it is your job John.

Wow! What a remarkably obtuse answer! From a quick glance, this looks like a meta-analysis of 76 published studies (all of which are likely to have been peer-reviewed). The opinion reached by at maximum 76 teams of researchers who use the scientific method are likely to be better than you sitting at your computer and trying to rubbish their work. Don't talk complete garbage. Also, if you are a troll, you are likely to get caught early with your stubborn and near-sighted nonsense.

There are two papers - one on bats, including wild bats in an uncontrolled but closely observed environment. The other is on tracking wild tiger movements in habitats fragmented by humans. These are looking at end behaviours which are measurable and provide evidence. How could you provide evidence for any behaviour which is not measurable? It would not be considered evidence by you! Evidence is only provided on the end results of behaviours surely!

It's whatever the powers decide; it's arbitrary. In the UK, mushrooms could be consumed fresh at one time, then they made that illegal and put them in Class A i.e 'hard'.

So you know what they know. Those are some impressive powers you have.

None of that should allow you to not only guess at the motivations of the buyers, but then condemn their actions based only on your guesswork, and be taken seriously. As has been pointed out, despite your incredulity, buying a wedding cake is neither a criminal activity nor a political one, especially when the couple was already legally married in another state. I'm still not seeing why the politics of the time should have steered this couple away from Masterpiece Cakeshop. Did you realize that's the name? Not "Devout Christian Cakes" or "Not For Gay Use Cakes" or even "Master Race Cakeshop". I also think it's ludicrous for you to suggest they should have bought a wedding cake in MA and have it shipped back to CO. Who would do THAT?! It's clear you really want to be right about this. OK, more evidence that you just want to be "right" about this. That was no hint, it was a mistake you should own up to, you know, since you're human and all.

But you're quite obviously claiming that your intuition is guiding you in your beliefs about gay people in Colorado. Your opinions are based on your hunches, and that's where I'd like to see a bit more rigor backing you up. It's plain you didn't know a LOT about the couple in question, and yet were making up motives they allegedly had in their search for a cake. When facts were pointed out, you didn't seem to take them into consideration and continued to favor your own made up interpretation over the evidence.

Let's be clear here. You are the one stating that you think they single out this specific baker to make a political statement. I am asking you what your proof is. Asking me for proof that they didn't doesn't support your assertion. You are the one stating they singled out this specific baker it is you who needs evidence to logically support the assertion. My assertion is that you do not have that evidence. Attempting to turn the burden of evidence toward me only serves to prove my point. How you would have gone about it is irrelevant. No one has any obligation to do what you would do nor is the way you would do something inherently superior to the way anyone else does things. I am an atheist, a liberal, a hetrosexual, a pescatarian (newly-ish), a native Californian, etc, etc. Anyone of the things I am potentially could be bothersome to some people based on their beliefs. I do not feel the need to carry a biography around shopping with me though. I don't feel I owe anyone an explanation for who I am or what I plan to do with the products I purchase.

Cannabis withdrawal will not kill you yet you assert there is no scientific distinction between "hard" and "soft" drugs. I'm not sure I follow.

It's not the sensors or the body that knows if something is hot or cold. It's the brain. The sensors are activated, and the brain simply get's the message "sensor activated", and it simply collates all the information, from all of the different sensors, and matches it to memories that have built up as we are growing and learning from childhood. I can remember years ago being at an ice-cream van, and a couple had a young baby, and they said "this is her first taste of ice-cream". They gave it to the baby to lick, and the little girl screwed up her face and said "hot !!!" Then, seconds later, she obviously decided she really liked it, and was kicking her legs and struggling to try to get another lick. It was funny at the time.

In that case, he hasn't got a leg to stand on. That particular case does initially come across as a genuine case, rather than activists setting a trap for Christian bakers. The thing is though, the incident happened in 2012, In Colorado, same sex marriage was illegal till 2014, and then it became legal in all of the US in 2015. So it's a complicated case from that point of view. How can you compel someone to make a wedding cake for an illegal wedding? Or penalise someone for refusing, when the wedding was not permitted at the time under state law? The couple were actually married in Massachusetts a month previously, which does make you wonder why they were buying it at all. They obviously were well aware of the legal position in Colorado at the time. It's portrayed as a genuine case, but it does smack of activism. It reminds me of a recent row between my brother and sister over a tiny amount of money. Neither would back down, and it was obvious that they were winding each other up. They were both as bad as each other, and my other sister eventually stepped in and took it over. Two adults acting like children. That's families for you. This kind of thing seems pretty similar. Who would want the bloody cake, if they didn't want to bake it? If I was gay, in the Bible Belt, and getting married, I'd find someone who wanted the custom and not choose religious fundies. And how pathetic is it, to refuse to bake an innocuous cake, even if you don't agree with whatever's being celebrated? It's grown people acting like children, all the way to the supreme court.

As far as I understand it, the increase in size of a benign tumor simply increases chances of further random mutations which will eventually allow one to become malignant. Benign tumor cells usually have developed a mutation which allows them to multiply uncontrollably, but can still be contained by the actions of immune system. At the same time this uncontrolled replication increases the chances of further mutations coming along which will alter some of the genes relating to immune response, such as being able to evade natural killer cells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_killer_cell#NK_cell_evasion_by_tumor_cells From that point on, you get a malignant tumor.

I would love to know more about this, please elaborate.

I would think it depends entirely on the type of drugs. I don't see a particular problem with legalizing 'soft' drugs like pot. Although legalizing pot while making tobacco products almost illegal seems counter-intuitive. But should I care, I don't smoke either ? Legalization of 'hard' drugs would turn an acute problem, where people die quickly from related crime and overdosing, into a chronic problem, where safe-injection sites and availability lead to ruined lives and ( most likely ) eventual death. And I shouldn't care because I don't do 'hard' drugs either. Problem is, I do care. A lot of people use drugs as a 'crutch', to escape from the unfortunate state of their lives. Much like alcoholics use booze. What may have started as a 'pleasurable' experience, becomes a 'crutch' as a coping mechanism. There is another 'crutch' that people use as a coping mechanism. And although it is legal, I don't see many advocates for religion here.

That sounds reasonable. I’m not sure though, that I wouldn’t be tempted after 20 years to have some cocaine at half price and at 100% purity. I’m not sure how that would save my life.

Holy crap. Apparently I REALLY need to up my game! I built a cool table for our patio using cedar 4x4s joined by halflap joints with mitered angles. Tried to upload an image, but have hit my limit it seems. Came out nicely.

Thanks all for your valuable inputs. Thanks & Regards, Prashant S Akerkar

We're making progress if conservatives are launching instead of lynching. It wasn't that long ago....

Then you plainly do not know what you are talking about. Show me the science behind the distinction. It's not my job to try to prove a negative. Not really. However, the law fails to distinguish between different strains even though the potency varies enormously. The law will punish you for selling old fashioned weak dope or the modern super strong skunk in the same way. However, if you breed and import skunk, you can dilute it down with tobacco or whatever. Your customers will still get stoned, so they will pay just as much. But, because you can get the same intoxication of the same number of customers with less actual plant material, you don't need to move as much product. So you are less likely to get caught smuggling it. So, the drive to higher potency strains of cannabis was driven by the government's policy of criminalisation.

Did anyone say it would? The distinction between "hard" and "soft" drugs is not based in science, it is largely political dogma. It was observed during the Vietnam war (among others) that soldiers used a lot of drugs to get through the experience. Most of them quit taking the drugs when they got home. That's because their "home" environment was supportive. If you want to reduce chronic drug use, what you should do is make everybody's "home" supportive. The "war on drugs" tends to do the exact opposite. This fact is known to the politicians.

What do you mean then? I don't get why you even ask that question. Are you drunk perhaps? There are regional differences due to external factors.

Total bunk. A great example of really bad pseudo-science.

First you have to have actual evidence. All they have are supposition and conjecture, and they know it. Which is why their so-called conclusions begins with "seems to..." This is nothing more than anthropomorphism, attempting to impose human characteristics and behaviors into animals they observe. It is total BS.

How can I prove that a distinction between two classes does not exist? However, I try to convince you. You don't even consider dope to be a drug; the law and the pharmacopoeia do. If there's no agreement on whether dope is a drug or not, how can there be agreement on whether it's a "hard" drug? Also, since I'm the chemistry expert and I say there's no difference, you should accept that fact from me- as an expert. OK, that's one definition. Since nicotine is exceptionally easy to overdose on- it is more toxic weight for weight than cyanide- nicotine is a hard drug. Plenty of people are killed by alcohol Caffeine is lethal if taken in excess. On the other hand, LSD is almost impossible to overdose on in the sense of killing you. The permanent brain damage is a different matter. So LSD and cannabis are soft drugs- in spite of the well known dangers of long term damage. Tea, tobacco, cocaine, heroin and beer are all hard drugs even though the range of observed harm caused by them, and the range of social acceptability, are enormous. Is that distinction helpful? Other definitions of "hard vs soft" also exist, but they all (as far as I know) run into similar problems when you look in detail.

So where is this evidence? You only think the effects of humans on the ecosystems are well known. There is no evidence of that either. Science is about producing evidence. If you want indoctrination instead of science there is always the public school system. So where is this supposed data? At what latitude and time of the year did they make these observations, and for how long? You know, actual evidence? Making up some BS about how a chimpmunk refuses to cross a man-made road then drawing the conclusion that it MUST be because of the impact of humanity doesn't cut it as far as evidence is concerned. Anecdotes do not qualify as evidence either. Animal behavior can be observed, but to attempt to draw any conclusions based upon those observations is completely invalid. There is absolutely no way any observer can determine what another animal is thinking, why they behave a particular way, or what is influencing their behavior. It is entirely conjuncture and anthropomorphism. To use your example, if you take away the hunters deer become over-populated and are forced to resort to inhabit golf courses and housing developments in order to find food. That is equally as invalid of a conclusion as you assuming they are becoming suddenly very friendly. The reality is that we do not know what is influencing their behavior. Yea, it is called reading the paper. You might try it sometime. Here is the link: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6394/1232

The basics of chemistry are made easier if we observe that the periodic table is scary when it hit's school kids, no? If we know that, then maybe we could observe that we will need to learn the chemistry song as a school motto, if you do science, and, why not do science? Learning the order will for example tell you how many protons and electrons each element has, besides the orbitals, which I am still working on finding a formula for, and, before that we can observe what molecules are, to get kids interested in what they will be applied to, of course? This will ignite the interest, or, dismissal of the subject early on, as, that is what it is all about! So, bonds are where things bond together, atoms, elements, chemicals. I always call semi metals liquids, so, please bear with me regarding this? The bonds are where the mass of one thing is greater than the mass the mass of something else, where the magnetic pull of one over another, like the moon orbits the earth, are where the protons of the moon resist the pull of the earth, as they are charged with the same type of charge, being made of the same stuff, but, the one is trying to dominate the other, as when you have one set of electrons greater then the protons of another, or, when there is 'imbalance,' then there is as 'friction' and attraction between the two, as, they are dominant and submissive [~ sort of like sex!]. Now, that is "why" they bond. The gluons or little sticks you see between the atoms, are strands of resistance channelling energy between them, and, resisting them occupying the same space. This is because each cell fights to dominate the space it has, seeing it's own quest to survive, and, this is shared by all conscious and unconscious forms of matter, as, they will see more of them as being good for them. They will bond because they will look to 'subjugate' each other, but, resisting each other of the same type. That can be likened in nature, as a go between between zoology and physics, the studies of nature, and, yes, chemistry is also a study of nature, where they will like see other alpha males, okay? Cells are bonds of living tissue, where they come together to 'use each other.' They collect, as do animals, as do particles, to support each other. This is a community thing, okay? This is like a atom being made of a neutron, which is dead mass that pulls things towards it as it is negatively charged, like a little fridge magnet, lulling mass towards it like a "anion," okay? This is why we see them collecting, to make a community the best way they can, and, they will support each other in a mutual relationship, of course.

You can't prove what was in their heads. But a gay couple in Colorado would have been very well aware of the current scene. To portray them as a couple of innocents expecting any and every shop in the Bible Belt to be happy baking a cake for a gay wedding is disingenuous. They would have known, or expected refusal. In Colorado. In 2012. You couldn't be an openly gay couple and be that naive at that time. While I can't prove it, I'm absolutely sure that they would have known and expected the likely outcome, and were fishing for it. I think the Rosa Park thing is different. She had already paid and been accepted, and was using what she had paid for, a seat in the coloured section of the bus. The driver wanted her to get up and give her seat to a white passenger. It's not like the shop baked the cake, sold it, and then demanded it back because a straight person wanted it. If that happened, I would of course be against that.

They could have got a cake in Massachusetts. They knew perfectly well that at the time, same sex marriages were not legal in Colorado, so their upset and outrage seems a bit contrived. And the gay marriage question was being hotly debated at the time, so they would have been very well aware of the Christian fundy views on it. To a lot of Christians, opposing gay marriage at the time was a religious question, not a question of anti-gay discrimination. They see marriage as a religious thing, rather than a legal contract. I suppose that's why there's no prospect of churches being compelled to perform gay weddings any time soon. Having different laws in different states is a recipe for trouble. I've often wondered what happens if you have legal sex in one state, with a girl who is under age in another. Although I think the differences in age of consent are not as big as they once were.