You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I'm just not feeling it...
- Thread starter LV426
- Start date
It's sad that you have to stoop to this level just because you lost a debate on an anonymous internet message board.
But it's not surprising.
Why are you saying this? Are you ok, you aren't making any sense. I never claimed you pm'd me.
no peer reviewed studies showing the efficacy. I didn't think so. Yet you are all for it. You smoke a lot don't you?
So, not only are you completely wrong on every point in this debate, but you're also a lazy fucking asshole who doesn't read links.
“The results from these three studies provide substantial evidence of the effectiveness of CBD for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome (LGS and DS),”
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-committee-recommends-first-cbd-oil-product-n867511
Like, literally the thing you said isn't there, is there. You just didn't want to click the link because you know it will humiliate your argument even further.
How is it possible that nearly everything you've said this entire thread is wrong?
So, not only are you completely wrong on every point in this debate, but you're also a lazy fucking asshole who doesn't read links.
“The results from these three studies provide substantial evidence of the effectiveness of CBD for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome (LGS and DS),”
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-committee-recommends-first-cbd-oil-product-n867511
Like, literally the thing you said isn't there, is there. You just didn't want to click the link because you know it will humiliate your argument even further.
How is it possible that nearly everything you've said this entire thread is wrong?
Link to the fucking study numbnutz and thats cbd oil not marijuana.
Please stop pm'ing me.
Then, cabrone, you should be able to easily link to them.
Or, maybe you could stop being a lazy fucking asshole and read the links when they're given to you the first time.
Or, maybe you could just admit that you got over your skis in this debate, that you entered into one with someone far more informed than you, and that you've been acting like an entitled brat ever since.
Not sure why you think you are owed accommodation. You haven't done anything to earn your entitlement.
“The results from these three studies provide substantial evidence of the effectiveness of CBD for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome (LGS and DS),”
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-committee-recommends-first-cbd-oil-product-n867511
Why are you saying this? Are you ok, you aren't making any sense. I never claimed you pm'd me.
Now you're just trying to frustrate a thread because you lost the debate...and you lost in pretty spectacular fashion too.
Now you're just trying to frustrate a thread because you lost the debate...and you lost in pretty spectacular fashion too.
Stop Pm'ing me. please.
Link to the fucking study numbnutz and thats cbd oil not marijuana.
CBD oil is derived from cannabis.
Cannabis = marijuana
FFS, why don't you just admit you were wrong?
The NBC article says that there were three studies done. Do your fucking homework if you're doubting that.
It's not my job to accommodate your bad faith posturing.
Please stop pm'ing me.
Reverend, just one post ago:
I never claimed you pm'd me.
CBD oil is derived from cannabis.
Cannabis = marijuana
FFS, why don't you just admit you were wrong?
The NBC article says that there were three studies done. Do your fucking homework if you're doubting that.
It's not my job to accommodate your bad faith posturing.
Incorrect. When one discusses marijuana they are discussing the THC contend in it.
You can't post a peer reviewed study because there aren't any for marijuana. Ask me why.
Reverend, just one post ago:
What are you talking about, I never posted anything about pm's/
Incorrect. When one discusses marijuana they are discussing the THC contend in it.
No they're not.
You can't post a peer reviewed study because there aren't any for marijuana. Ask me why.
Goalpost shift.
CBD Oil is derived from marijuana.
What are you talking about, I never posted anything about pm's/
It's OK, we know why you're doing this.
You cannot handle that someone showed you up on an anonymous message board, so you have to try every tactic in the book to save face.
Pathetic. Kill yourself.
Incorrect. When one discusses marijuana they are discussing the THC contend in it.
No they're not. And you just set this arbitrary standard right now to save face.
See, you're so desperate to be right about something that you'll move goalposts and self-contradict just so you don't have to admit you're not as clever, savvy, or informed as you want people to think.
You're really just a fraud.
No they're not.
Goalpost shift.
CBD Oil is derived from marijuana.
yes they are. that was the question posed to you.
It's absolutely a choice. Consider the marijuana argument. People think it cures everything, I think they are full of shit, but I also think people should have the choice to use it if they want. IT's the same with these experimental drugs but the stakes are higher. What harm will come to a terminally ill patient, will they die or something?
And why are you pming me?
See? you shifted it, but you still lost as you haven't posted any peer reviewed studies.
Why are you arguing for the prohibition of marijuana? don't you smoke a lot of it?
yes they are. that was the question posed to you.
No it wasn't.
You posed a quesiton and then redefined the parameters of what you meant, post-hoc.
You did that because you got humiliated in a debate.
You first said peer reviewed studies of marijuana, and I provided you that info with regard to CBD oil which is a derivative of marijuana. Then and only then did you redefine what you meant, post-hoc, so you could save face.
Sad.
See? you shifted it, but you still lost as you haven't posted any peer reviewed studies.
No, you shifted it post-hoc.
We can see it in the thread.
But this isn't the first time you've redefined the parameters of what you meant, post hoc. And it won't be the last time you do it either because you're just an insecure, entitled nobody desperate for validation and accommodation.
No it wasn't.
You posed a quesiton and then redefined the parameters of what you meant, post-hoc.
You did that because you got humiliated in a debate.
You first said peer reviewed studies of marijuana, and I provided you that info with regard to CBD oil which is a derivative of marijuana. Then and only then did you redefine what you meant, post-hoc, so you could save face.
Sad.
I literally showed you.
CBD is a derivitave of marijuana it is not a Marijuana which is a plant that has active canniboids such as thc. you are speaking of an extract. you fail.
and you still haven't posted a peer reviewed study.
And why are you still pm'ing me? no I am not interested in scientology.
Why are you arguing for the prohibition of marijuana? don't you smoke a lot of it?
It's sad that you have to resort to these tactics in a debate, just so you don't have to admit you're not as clever as you think.
I literally showed you.
No you didn't.
You started off broad, and then you kept redefining the parameters of what you meant, shifting goalposts for the sole reason of preserving your own fragile ego.
It would probably kill you to have to admit you hastily came to a position without due diligence.