- Time
- Post link
Myths — Page 5
- Time
- Post link
I think I'll grab that text as well, my friends will enjoy it. Chilly, did you write that yourself or grab it from somewhere?
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: sean wookie
anybody go on snopes or watch mythbusters
I WATCH MYTHBUSTERS.
"I'VE GROWN TIRED OF ASKING, SO THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME..."
The Mangler Bros. Psycho Dayv Armchaireviews Notes on Suicide
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
The debate over ADD and ADHD does continue, however it is a list of known symptoms from several possible causes. The drugs all treat the symptoms, not the "disease" (which doesn't actually exist). OK got that?
Treating symptoms is all very well and good, until it comes to diagnosing the mind of a child as a disease, and then permanently altering it with (mind-controlling) drugs. Caffeine and Alcohol are mind-controlling drugs ... when abused they completely remove you from your natural state of mind. This is exactly what the drugs for ADD and ADHD do... but wait is that all bad? Well it's common practice in some areas to give a child alcohol to numb pain. If a child regularly drank alcohol then they would suffer from many problems because their bodies are still developing. Their liver and kidneys would be put under more intense stress. OK, well it's still alright to give a child alcohol when they're in a lot of pain right? Sure why not - the effects on the body are not going to be any worse than paracetamol (which has permanent negative effects on your body, even if you are an adult).
Even for an adult a beer is healthier than a standard intake of paracetamol.
But they're all drugs. All legal drugs, yes that's all very well and good. Then we get to Ritalin, often called "kiddy speed". The name couldn't be more appropriate, or less appropriate. It doesn't fit what the drug is either - yes it is a class A drug, but no it's not safe for kids as the name might imply.
Nevertheless as any other drug, deaths are caused by it. We could talk about all the ADD/ADHD drugs and pick them apart one by one. Dexedrine, Adderall, Gradumet, Desoxyn... but they all have one thing in common. They are designed to change the state of your mind. You know, the same thing that happens after you've had one too many beers - but wait they claim that it does it in a positive way. Don't ask me what this world has come to when we don't want children to be able to use their natural state of mind, and wish to control even their minds with drugs, but even if we grant this we still run into the big gaping problem.
And that is that the drug has negative physical effects. Permanent, irreversible effects. Yes it's been said one beer a day is good for you, however alcoholism claims more deaths than all illegal drugs combined (in Aus, the UK and the USA). With that said, Alcohol needs to be abused before it becomes a dangerous drug, whereas nicotine (for instance) has a negative effect all the time (which is why tobacco use kills many more people than alcohol use does).
Back on track, children do die from the drugs they are prescribed on for ADHD treatment. Those that don't suffer other growth problems, the full extent of which will probably never be known, because such things are not exactly measurable. What do you expect when you take away someone's mind and replace it with a drug anyway? A drug that does the opposite to this is Aripiprazole, it is an anti-psychotic drug used to treat schizophrenics - as the name suggests, it is designed to ensure that the person who suffers from Schizophrenia keeps their natural state of mind. Now wait a second, that's a drug that's being used to treat the symptom rather than the disease, correct? YES! But in this case it's a symptom caused by a real disease, one that is not curable... well not with drugs. In Australia if a Schizophrenic was to commit a felony in a schizophrenic state of mind, then in a court of law if it would be accepted that it occurred involuntarily due to a disease that effects one's mind to the point where they can no longer control their own actions. Or in legal jargon "non-insane automatism".
See they would not be considered insane because it's not their normal or natural state of mind... anyhow, conversely if a person who suffered from ADD or ADHD committed a felony in lack of using their mind-controlling drugs they would be prosecuted under Australian law. Australian law would hold that they were in their normal, natural state of mind (insane or not). Why?
Because ADD does not exist. ADHD does not exist. Why does it not exist?
Because a disease is not a list of symptoms.
Because treating symptoms does nothing to remove the disease.
Because a child's mind is not a disease, nor is it the symptom of a disease.
- Time
- Post link
But as I said, it's just a theory and I've never looked into it. This is the first of hearing what you're saying DanielB, so I can't jump onboard immediately, but I find what you said fascinating.
- Time
- Post link
It still exists today and has been seen in satellite photos. There is a drawing of it at http://arksearch.com/naexped.htm and it looks exactly how you'd expect it to. It's like a giant block, with lots of windows at the top for air flow. It wasn't designed to go anywhere specific, it's purpose was to stay afloat, not to reach a specific destination. Which is why the front and back are flat, why there are no sails or holes for oars, and disproves any possibility of the vessel having any other purpose other than to stay afloat. It will be seen again, when enough ice melts and enough people are allowed to enter the area (which is not available to even the local public, let alone international visitors).
It's amazing how today, even with all the hard reliable evidence available, people will not believe it until they can actually see it with their own eyes.
- Time
- Post link
OK, I checked out that site and googled it. I'll take some convincing before I go with this one. It sounds like Roswell type sightings to me, so few and far between. File me with the skeptics here.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
As for the story of Noah I recently watched a docmentary on Noahs ark. As far as I can tell the documentary debunked the biblical story of Noah pretty well if everything in the bible is to be takin literally (And i dont mean that in a bad way. In my opinion all of the stories have very important symbols and themes that should be understood and undertaken. e.g. Noahs Ark: man should not be over confident or it will leed to there distruction. That is a very important lesson which I am sorry to say we are not heeding in the world today. I compare the stories in the bible to thought experiments that scientists use to explain things), it however takes hints that may have been exaggerated in the bible and cross references them to the stories that are told by other cultures in the area, babilonia(sp) and so on. It conclusively proves that there could have been a guy that survived a flood in that area. But it explains how a global flood is physically impossible because there is not enough water in the air and on the earth to completely flood the world to the top of Everest. they also explained that for Noah to build an ark of the size that was specified by god 1. could not be done in a week given modern technology let alone the technology of the time. and 2. that a structure as large as the ark could not be build from wood because it would not be stable, the wood would warp and bend and the ship would sink.
Personally, the counter story that they put fourth while making sence just doesnt seem right. and as for the biblical story of Noah, I just dont know so I can't comment for or against it.