Ongoing Snark Thread

[John_DiFool]

Contemplation contemplating how many shots you get before ye olde revolver goes click.

[Sunny_Daze]

[Sunny_Daze]

DrDeth

@DrDeth

I don’t think threads started in IMHO, etc should be moved to the PIT. It means that posters who don’t like the PIT- or perhaps should never go to the PIT as they react badly- are sent willy-nilly to a place they don’t want to be.

Yes, some threads do get a bit out of hand. The solution is simple- close the thread offering them the choice of going to the Pit, or a warning that they should “take it to the Pit or the thread will be locked”.

There is NEVER a good reason to actually move a thread to the Pit.

Please don’t.

And, octopus I’ll remind you, again, to read the rules about the Pit. They are different.

[74westy]

Now you’ve forced DrDeth to participate in a Pit thread against his will!

[Chimera]

But he did not wish to create joinder! The Pit flag has a gold fringe!

[Sunny_Daze]

I wanted to know what would happen when the streams crossed.

[Sunny_Daze]

SamuelA returns to his old ways with another rant on cryogenics.

@SamuelA

You know that a cryogenic freeze has some non zero probability of success. Sure the odds are dismal today as our science and understanding of the mind is so poor - but it is not zero. If the physical structure survives, it is probably possible to eventually tear down their frozen brain and recover their stored memory and personality, and experiments conducted by MIT have attempted to do this recently with small sections of rat cortex. (and it sort of works, well enough to show the process is feasible although of course the emulated brain slice doesn’t exactly match the original because of flawed current models)

Therefore freezing patients when they first develop dementia is the rational treatment to try. Convince me otherwise.

I think the reason this is not commonly done now is because of the influence of irrational religion. If you reject religion and model expected outcomes purely by the known physical world, this is the correct action to attempt.

No, nut job. The reason it isn’t done is because those people are still alive, and have not asked anyone to cut their heads off. Not to mention that cryogenics doesn’t work. I sincerely hope he never becomes a doctor and goes anywhere near patients. He sounds like a horror movie in the making. I picture him with a basement full of heads in freezers. It will work this time Igor. I’ll fix that flawed model with this slice. What’s that? A human brain is more complicated than a rat and we still can’t do that? Nonsense. I’m sure their families will be over-joyed that I cut off Grandpa’s head without asking for my important experiments!

[Skywatcher]

Looks like we got another dumb kid on summer break. Either that or a spammer trying to appear legitimate before spamming.

[Skywatcher]

Your idea has already been shot down. Give it a rest, shadea.

[JohnT]

Somebody decides to quit drinking. Instead of congratulations, many Dopers respond with defensiveness, a sidebar debate as to whether cancer or dementia is a worse way to go, and a bizarre (well, to the outside world… here it’s normal ) need to argue risk analysis:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=859718

[Riemann]

@JohnT

Somebody decides to quit drinking. Instead of congratulations, many Dopers respond with defensiveness, a sidebar debate as to whether cancer or dementia is a worse way to go, and a bizarre (well, to the outside world… here it’s normal ) need to argue risk analysis…

A reasonable criticism if OP were an alcoholic who has just embarked on sobriety. But OP said that’s not the case, and presented his decision in the OP as a reasoned risk analysis for a moderate drinker, based on cancer risk. Why do you think a discussion of cancer risk is out of place in that context?

[BigT]

@Riemann

A reasonable criticism if OP were an alcoholic who has just embarked on sobriety. But OP said that’s not the case, and presented his decision in the OP as a reasoned risk analysis for a moderate drinker, based on cancer risk. Why do you think a discussion of cancer risk is out of place in that context?

Because nothing about the thread suggested the OP wanted advice on what they should do.

[Riemann]

@BigT

Because nothing about the thread suggested the OP wanted advice on what she should do.

Huh? As I said, if it’s an alcoholic getting sober where support and solidarity is called for, that’s one thing. But when someone posts an extensive account of the risk analysis behind a carefully reasoned decision they have made, on a discussion forum in the IMHO section, you think it’s inappropriate to discuss it?

[JohnT]

I think it’s appropriate to either congratulate Rivkah or ignore the news, not to prattle on how their risk analysis is flawed. Else I would be justified to enter every thread about “this is why and how I decided to improve my health” with a witty… and accurate… “sez the person who still uses cars for transportation” response.