jasory

I think people need to actually research THC and cannabinoids. The handful of studies that have been done on them show that it's no better than OTC medication in all but the very rarest cases.

Medical marijuana is a complete hoax, it was always about making money and getting high.

There are some facts to support it, the problem is in the latter. Merely describing a system isn't sufficient, it's predicting more information. One can just as easily describe physics "as the things that are" but this doesn't let us find more information about the universe.

I don't believe any state has a law that says that abortions must be provided to you. The legal right ammendments that activists are trying pass are simply to bar the state from restricting abortions.

Abortion is not a religious issue. It is merely correlated with religious beliefs. Many religions have no position on abortion, and even the Bible holds no clear position on it, it's presence in Christianity is a secular synthesis.

SCOTUS also reaffirmed in every single pro-choice case (e.g Roe v Wade Casey v. PlannedParenthood ) that the government has a right to regulate abortion in general just not in certain cases. At no point was it ever considered to be enforcing religious beliefs. This has never been considered a religious issue by any but the most retarded people.

"At that point it's indistinguishable from an embryo of a dolphin"

So we don't know if embryos in humans are actually human?

The argument you are actually making is that it is visually indistinguishable from other embryos .

But this is meaningless, visual inspection is not the only allowed method for determining categorization. One wouldn't look at a human in a realistic bear costume, and a bear and declare that they are the same thing. Or a stick-bug and a stick.

"It can't even think yet"

There are numerous intervals of time were you don't think, are you not worthy of protection? Can you be killed so long as neural synapses are severed faster than axons can fire? (Highly intense radiation can do this). Keep in mind that your argument completely falls apart once you consider that consciousness is a pattern of activity not a definite property.

"There is nothing to protect or give rights to"

1. We protect inanimate objects. Are you asserting that fetuses don't even exist?
2. There is nothing "scientific" or empirically derived about an application of moral valuation. This is simply you confusing yourself over word salad.
3. "It's only complicated because of different spiritual beliefs"- And yet the poster gave a non-spiritual reason. So why didn't you show that it's either not complicated or that the user is actually relying on spiritual beliefs?

"Clearly should have a right to her own body"

This is actually not clear at all. Consider self-harm, if people actually do have a right to their own body to do whatever they please then we have absolutely no right to take any measures to prevent self-harm; it is a violation of their rights. So if someone says "I want to cut my arm off", you have no basis for saying "no you really shouldn't" because it is "their body their choice". The minute you say "Actually self-harm is irrational" means that it is not what the person wants that matters, but what a rational person would want. And then one could easily argue that a rational person wouldn't want to engage in self-mutilation or killing a fetus. This is known in the literature as the "suicidal Bob problem" or the "argument of the idealised self".

This and many other issues with defining bodily autonomy in such a way as to permit abortion is why it has largely been rejected in serious ethics; it's only popular among the public because it's essentially an elaborate appeal to emotion fallacy.

"Some real problems with long-term storage"

Political problems. Real, political problems; see Harry Reid's opposition to Yucca. Fossil fuel and renewable manufacturing also have serious waste problems that are on a far greater scale than nuclear.

Nuclear is attractive because all the renewable options are climate dependent consequently highly variable. Unless you have some new form of renewable energy, this isn't going to change.

They're easy to shit on because they are stupid, being passionate and stupid are not a necessary combination.

"I can't tell how people add information to these things"

As a Wikipedian, it's actually not that difficult. You typically start by row and just fill them all out. The much harder part is collecting the information initially, and verifying it (which as you can see in most comparisons isn't actually done).

These aren't even datasets that are large enough to warrant automation.

CCR is the primary method taught in cardiac care. E.g only compression. This is because the primary issue is preventing clots and making sure you get some blood flow to the tissues. Full oxygenation isn't as important due to lower oxygen demand of an unconscious person.