Kranis

Many used to, but recent arguments have turned the consensus away from it fairly profoundly based on what I can tell.

 

All in all, the evidence all suggests that sexuality is very much predisposed by genes, regardless of what people personally choose to believe. You can choose your friends and choose your hobbies, but you can't choose your family or choose who you love. Why homosexuality may have evolved or survived is another question (that's also been answered elsewhere).

 

if you put it that way then people might not have to choose their hobbies, it can be genetic too when you think about it. Things you love to do whether its draw, play sports, men, women, etc. Still sources claim there is a gay gene others say there isnt, there are even gay people who suggest they chose to be gay.

 

 

 

So you just made a choice one day that you were going to start seeing girls as sexually attractive instead of icky? It was a conscious choice you made? You feel that if you wanted to you could just choose to be sexually aroused by men?

 

i could of. but i didnt.

 

It is almost certainly based on genetic predisposition, regardless of what you refuse to believe or accept. It's almost certainly not based on a single gene, either, but on a family of genes.

 

http://www.sciencefo...128#entry557128

 

but the gay gene hasnt even been discovered, so its still arguable

When people talk about homosexuals they say "They dont have a choice" "its genetic", i refuse to believe that, i dont think you can be born gay, but by the experiences people venture through that makes them gay. Also i dont believe in the gay gene because growing up, most of my friends and i didnt like girls till around 4th and 5th grade. i went through that "girls are icky" phase pretty much. Anyways i dont believe the gay gene exists and i do believe its a life choice, people have their free will to choose or not in my opinion, if the gay gene does exist then its a very confusing part of genetics. what do you guys think?

What is the whole point of life? I want to know what people think about this. Or even if there is no point at all and we are just here. Or if there is a higher conscious level being out there with a plan? What is the Point of life?

Well, that's one way to go.

 

On the other hand, you are the one who said a brain transplant can't be done. It seems reasonable therefore that you should back up your claim rather than make me do it. Either that or don't make the claim in the first place.

 

I don't have to back my claim up when its so freaking simple, You cant live with someone else's brain, DNA wise, database wise, all the info is stored in your brain of what you know, if you lost your brain and tried to get someone else's it will not be you, its simple, now if your brain lives and you need a new body, that might be possible in the future, as of right now it doesn't make sense to take in someone else's brain into your body...

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are telling me. Can you please rephrase?

 

Do some research on the brain and what makes up the brain and how it works, you can find your answer like that.

No. Believing in possibilities is open minded. Believing as s 'fact' that there is something after death is not only close minded but it also indicates a flaw in one's ability to reason rationally. Open minded people do not draw unsupported conclusions.

 

If it was "fact" then you would not have to believe in it

 

No that is not how i look at it, and that video is pretty irrational to the thoughts of atheists and believers.

So in what way does 'it would not be you' make the transplant operation impossible?

 

Well learn some things about your brain before deciding to put someone else's brain in that spot.

Any particular reason, or even better evidence, for this assertions?

 

Common sense, think about it, the brain IS you, its Your database, if you were to get someone else's brain, it would not be you, and you might even be brain dead, your body might even negate the brain being there and kill you.

Sorry, mate... But no matter how much you wish to believe, your few personal anecdotal stories hardly negate the conclusions of the studies shared by Arete.

 

Also, the risk from cigarettes is perhaps greater than the risk from smoking joints because... well... you tend to smoke 10 or 20 cigarettes per day when you're a smoker. Come on... Don't let your emotions keep you from acknowledging that... yes, smoking pot leads to higher incidence of cancer than not smoking pot.

 

His links are saying different things, they say they do cause cancer faster, and that they do not. Yes there are people who smoke lots of cigarettes a day so it can be worse, but also when you take a hit of marijuana it stays in your lungs longer because you are holding it in longer then cigarettes. I have not found one source of information that states that a person has gotten cancer Only by smoking marijuana.

Who thinks humans will survive the next 1,000 years, yes?, no?, makes me wonder, war, diseases, overpopulation, lots of things that affect human survival.

This should not be a discussion on "science forums". Think about it, its a never ending cycle, and its pointless to discuss it here, if people want to be part of a religion that is their choice, you should not start to judge them right away

and tell them they are lesser beings because of it. Believing in something like "God" should not be frowned upon, its not a bad thing. It can make life better, and do not look at the believers as closed minded, because believing in something after death is pretty open minded to me, and believing that we just live and die and fade away from existence, is very closed minded. Basically religion is bad because of all the corrupted people, and the "fake" religious people who are basically judging others of sins, when everyone "sins". I personally do not like religion, but i have no problem in people just believing in "God" or believing in "higher beings" or beings of a higher conscious then us. It is better for people to follow the "good person" rules of religion instead of humans being idiots and causing wars over territory that should be shared. After all we are only human, animals.

Cant transplant a brain, if you do that would not be you, not your brain, not your control, a totally different person will come up.

Smoking pot increases your risk of cancer - particularly early onset testicular cancer in men, and each year of regular use increases your risk of lung cancer by ~8% (which is slightly more than regular tobacco use ):

http://www.ersj.org..../31/2/280.short

http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v9...l/nrc2617.html

http://cat.inist.fr/...cpsidt=20028743

 

That is not true for sure, marijuana most of the time is just plant smoking, when people are smoking cigarettes they are inhaling more then just the tobacco. I know lots of people who smoked marijuana and people who smoke it, they have no cancers at all, i do know people who smoked cigarettes who have cancer, there is a way bigger chance to get cancer with cigarettes then there is by just smoking marijuana.

and the point is 'believe' cancer therapies are tested for efficacy, they haven't just decided to pump cancer patients full of incredibly toxic chemicals for no reason. they decided to do it because it helps kill cancer cells faster than it kills normal cells.

 

cannabis DOES NOT DO THIS.

 

what cannabis can do, and has been proven to do, is help people deal with the side effects of cancer therapies. the nausea the pain etc. and these are not trivial side effects, they can be quite debilitating. unfortunately, we cannot just develop a version of anticancer drugs that doesn't have these side effects because that would be stopping the primary mechanism by which they kill cancer cells.

 

I would say cannabis could and probably should be used as a complimentary medicine to reduce the impact of the side effects in cancer patients that are particularly susceptible to it. and for god sake don't make them smoke it. cannabis smoke is just as likely to cause lung cancer as tobacco smoke no matter what the hippies say. there are many other longer lasting ways to ingest cannabis.

 

tldr version:

 

cure cancer: no

help with side effects: yes

smoke it: hell no

 

There has not been reported deaths over just smoking marijuana, all smoke is bad for the lungs i guess, but marijuana has been known to cause the least damage.

Every instance of cancer is different. A cancerous cell is just a normal cell thats gone a bit mental due to genetic damage and started reproducing all over the place. normal cells have mechanisms to prevent this but in a cancerous cell they are broken.

 

so, the cancer cell is essentially genetically identical to the host. this means each cancer is unique. If its a different host then it has a different DNA starting block so any treatment might not work on a different individual. then there is the location of the damage. this means that a treatment that works on damage to one gene will probably not work against a cancer caused by damage to a second gene.

 

asking 'how do we cure cancer?' is like asking 'how do we cure disease?' there are so many variations it is a hopeless question. there is no answer. you can make more sense by focusing on a specific area of cancer such as cancerous skin cells or cancerous lung cells but even then, those are pretty broad brushes.

 

It is highly unlikely there will ever be a single cure-all drug. most likely we will develop personalised medicines where the cancer genome is sequenced and a drug therapy that will be effective for that individual cancer can be applied.

 

hmm, well all in all its basically uncontrollable mitosis which some believe marijuana can slow the process down, or even cause it to stop.

 

 

 

Also, even if we assume that THC can minimize tumor growth (it probably makes the tumor apathetic and too focused on sitting on the couch to grow at a regular rate), most people smoke it, and the negatives of smoking almost certainly outweigh any potential benefit of the compound itself. As a reminder, that's a big IF that I placed there... as this only matters IF the finding can be relied upon as accurate.

 

I'm open to the possibility that this is true. The evidence offered me so far, however, doesn't incline me to accept that it is.

 

I dont know what to believe, i wish it was true, but if it was i dont know if it would be released, since the money for the hospitals isnt in the cure, its in the treatment.

 

 

 

There is no "THE" cancer. Everyone who summarizes it that way, doesn't ave any damn clue.

 

What do you mean?

 

One of my pet peeves is when media coverage or press release refers to a publication without linking back to it or even giving the title or authors or journal. Maybe the publication is god's gift to man, but how can you evaluate properly when the don't give you enough information? That's automatically fishy. I actually see this done most frequently with papers [allegedly] from Harvard academics... as if reputation alone should be enough to ward off critical investigation.

 

Yeah its hard to trust that source, but you can google the subject all around the internet

I think those people misunderstand. Anytime we inhale smoke, it is carcinogenic. This is true of cigarettes, of marijuana, and even of barbequed meat. Where pot helps sometimes is with cancer patients going through chemotherapy, since they tend to feel quite nauseous and have difficulty eating. Pot helps them develop an appetite and tends to minimize the nausea.

 

It does not cure cancer. There is, as of today, no cure for cancer. Anybody who tells you pot cures cancer is either mistaken or lying.

 

"Believe it or not, a Harvard study released on April 17, 2007 shows that the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread! Continue reading at NowPublic.com: THC (marijuana) helps cure cancer says Harvard study | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic...y#ixzz1tHTuIXAH "

I cant really rely on most of the info on the internet, but im not sure.

Around the internet i have noticed lots of people discussing the subject of marijuana being able to cure cancers. I have read that some scientists tested it on brain cancers and it was successful. What do you guys think?

What if the Earth is growing? As in increase in mass, total size of earth overall through time? Objects hitting Earth from space all the time can be a source of growth, or what if the Earth just grows naturally, kind of like an organism..

It's such a good idea that they already exist.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=pfVzfxD1iPY

 

That is awesome.

In a computer suite in which I worked in in the 1970's there was an automatic system that rapidly flooded the rooms with nitrogen. There was an alarm because the system would also extinguish your life if you wasted time getting out. Also the rooms (computers were that large in those days) had doors that would automatically close as the gas was released!

I doubt that something as small as a grenade could contain enough gas to do the job especially if the area in which the fire existed was not enclosed.

 

i guess in time, all things are possible, but i see what you're getting at, makes sense.

What if there is a grenade, that causes little to no damage to its surroundings, but releases a gas that removes the oxygen from the surrounding areas to take away the fires life source? Something firefighters can use without entering a room that is full of fire.. it think it would be amazing to have it, and someone should design one, or even create one. Anyone else think its a good idea?