jasory

Wouldn't this just prevent you from allocating more memory (than zero)?

Nope. I only learned to use computers as an adult, and only learned programming incidentally as a tool for other work.

The truth is that it's actually much faster to learn as an adult, you just have more momentum if you start as a child.

Ada particularly the SPARK subset. It's approach is quite different than most languages, focusing on minimising errors and correctness. It's fairly difficult but I like to use it to teach people to actually understand the problem and how to solve it before they ever write the code.

You will be sorely missed with your worthless commentary.... and your unwarranted arrogance.... sorely missed the people weep the loss....

Basically in-depth computer science knowledge; graph theory, automata, aspects of system programming.

I technically have a physics background coupled with a bit of self-study of pure mathematics. But those 3 categories I feel hold me back in application (in physics primarily, I don't do real software development).

You've had plenty of time to prove your claim that marijuana is an important medicine and anyone who disagrees must be citing Fox news, and yet all you have been able to do is act incredulous that there might be a more effective methodology for finding relevant research than a keyword search. The amount of relevant high-quality papers is not in the thousands, it's not even in the hundreds. You arrived at your conclusion by the most useless and sophmoric methodology and are acting smug because you (supposedly) teach an introductory class to highschool graduates. Guess what dipshit? We don't use your shitty lessons.

"Then we can talk"

You already admitted that you don't understand pharmacology so what exactly do you think you're going to talk about? How you still don't understand how to perform graph traversal to find related studies?

No there is not. There is a few hundred, and most of then don't even cover efficacy in vivo which is the subject matter.

Keep LARPing as an academic, lets see how stupid you really are.

This attitude is why you're still a moron.

When you encounter a lengthy description of why something is true or false, your response is "OMG so many words!"

Guess what buddy? Life isn't about punchy one-liners and vapid analysis.

1. Weak arguments aren't going to be effective in leading to any train of thought. They are going to be immediately refuted.

2. Your arguments are popular and extremely stupid. This is because the vast majority of people spend little time on ethics, ontology, and formal reasoning. This is like producing a theory of QM, when you flunked Calculus. Anyone can do it, everyone makes the same serious mistakes, and I have to hear the same arguments every single time.

"Once we acknowledge"...

How do we acknowledge something that isn't clearly true? (i.e not a tautology) First we must prove it to be true, then we can draw conclusions from it. As I already pointed out trying to prove that "human tissue only has value if it is thinking" fails because it's actually false.

Here's a formalisation of your reasoning.

1. An entity has no value unless it is thinking. Or less value than the mere desires of a thinking entity.
2. Fetuses do not think, therefore they have no value.

Problem is first premise is false and we can see that by determining what "thinking" is. Thinking or consciousness is a categorisation of intermittent and emergent behaviour. No human continously thinks, and even if they did it would not make sense to be able to classify them as thinking at any specific point of time. Individual firing of neurons is not thought, it is required for thought but it is not consciousness itself. It requires a system of neurons engaging in electrochemical action that meets some definition of thought (the exact definition doesn't matter, what matters is that it is emergent not instantaneous).

Your assertion leads to the claim that human moral value must collapse when they are in a non-thinking state. But as already shown every human regularly satisfies this condition, so it must therefore be permissible to kill them. In other words if abortion is permissible by your criteria, so is killing the mother.

Of course we can avoid this clearly immoral conclusion by changing the criteria by which we value humans to "members of a rational class". (Cancer cells clearly aren't this). This completely avoids the problems of killing people arbitrarily, killing people who don't solve a puzzle as fast as a rat, eating babies because we eat pork, all of which are logical conclusions of systems that only value thinking. (If you think this is motivated reasoning, simply research how moral systems are constructed and analytic descriptivism. You also used analytic descriptivism, you just horribly botched it by assuming that unproven premises were true).

Of course the only problem with this new system is that it doesn't permit killing fetuses (except to save another human life), which you really, really want.

"Just because cancer cells..."

I can't believe people delude themselves into thinking that this is a strong argument (again a very trite and silly argument). I fervently believe that we need government-mandated academic philosophers screaming into people's ears every time they say stupid shit like this. Or maybe get shocked by their keyboard.

This blog covers a lot of topics, but very superficially.

This blog covers a lot of topics, but very superficially.

Or maybe protected status is based on species membership, and not level of thought.

Keep in mind that infants have a lower level of thought than pigs. If it is permissible to kill and eat pigs based on their low capacity for thought, then it surely applies to infant humans as well? After all anything otherwise is "specieism" which is totally the same as racism Singer argues. (Referring to Peter Singer who makes the same dipshit argument albeit more effectively than you).