▲ 10 ▼ How to study people who are very drunk (archive.is) submitted 1 year ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world 13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Lembot_0004@discuss.online 1 point 1 year ago* (11 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] SillySpy@piefed.social 5 points 1 year ago That sounds like a slippery slope permalink fedilink source parent [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago What makes them think they have to ask people to do anything? Just buy a few kegs for the next frat party and observe. permalink fedilink source parent [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (8 children) Isn't that exactly what these scientists are doing? 4.7% of all deaths are attributed to alcohol consumption and a lot more people are suffering intensly due to alcohol consumption. How many people would have to die for you to consider it unethical? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] tmyakal@infosec.pub 4 points 1 year ago (7 children) Absolutely this. The American Cancer Association advises it is best not to drink alcohol. Alcohol use accounts for 5% of all cancers in the US. So it's a known carcinogen that also impairs judgements and motor functions, causes brain damage, and is habit forming. Just because it's been socialized to be acceptable doesn't mean it's not deadly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (6 children) Given that many people partake anyway, Maybe we should have some scientists study their behavior and the ramifications of their choices. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (5 children) You mean like in the OP? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (4 children) Yes, the circle is my point. You can’t argue that it’s always bad for people’s health so you can’t study it. Being known bad for people’s health just makes it more important to find a way permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) Did you read the article? Do you even know what we are talking about? The article specifically says how they managed to study drunk people without telling them to drink, and it's surprisingly easy: wait for people to get drunk on their own and then study the effects. Kinda surprised that I have to spell that out for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Almost like I brought it around full circle , after posts questioning the ethics of studying it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, you didn't. You just didn't understand what everyone else was talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago Ok permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SillySpy@piefed.social 5 points 1 year ago That sounds like a slippery slope permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago What makes them think they have to ask people to do anything? Just buy a few kegs for the next frat party and observe. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (8 children) Isn't that exactly what these scientists are doing? 4.7% of all deaths are attributed to alcohol consumption and a lot more people are suffering intensly due to alcohol consumption. How many people would have to die for you to consider it unethical? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] tmyakal@infosec.pub 4 points 1 year ago (7 children) Absolutely this. The American Cancer Association advises it is best not to drink alcohol. Alcohol use accounts for 5% of all cancers in the US. So it's a known carcinogen that also impairs judgements and motor functions, causes brain damage, and is habit forming. Just because it's been socialized to be acceptable doesn't mean it's not deadly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (6 children) Given that many people partake anyway, Maybe we should have some scientists study their behavior and the ramifications of their choices. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (5 children) You mean like in the OP? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (4 children) Yes, the circle is my point. You can’t argue that it’s always bad for people’s health so you can’t study it. Being known bad for people’s health just makes it more important to find a way permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) Did you read the article? Do you even know what we are talking about? The article specifically says how they managed to study drunk people without telling them to drink, and it's surprisingly easy: wait for people to get drunk on their own and then study the effects. Kinda surprised that I have to spell that out for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Almost like I brought it around full circle , after posts questioning the ethics of studying it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, you didn't. You just didn't understand what everyone else was talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago Ok permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tmyakal@infosec.pub 4 points 1 year ago (7 children) Absolutely this. The American Cancer Association advises it is best not to drink alcohol. Alcohol use accounts for 5% of all cancers in the US. So it's a known carcinogen that also impairs judgements and motor functions, causes brain damage, and is habit forming. Just because it's been socialized to be acceptable doesn't mean it's not deadly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (6 children) Given that many people partake anyway, Maybe we should have some scientists study their behavior and the ramifications of their choices. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (5 children) You mean like in the OP? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (4 children) Yes, the circle is my point. You can’t argue that it’s always bad for people’s health so you can’t study it. Being known bad for people’s health just makes it more important to find a way permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) Did you read the article? Do you even know what we are talking about? The article specifically says how they managed to study drunk people without telling them to drink, and it's surprisingly easy: wait for people to get drunk on their own and then study the effects. Kinda surprised that I have to spell that out for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Almost like I brought it around full circle , after posts questioning the ethics of studying it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, you didn't. You just didn't understand what everyone else was talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago Ok permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (6 children) Given that many people partake anyway, Maybe we should have some scientists study their behavior and the ramifications of their choices. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (5 children) You mean like in the OP? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (4 children) Yes, the circle is my point. You can’t argue that it’s always bad for people’s health so you can’t study it. Being known bad for people’s health just makes it more important to find a way permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) Did you read the article? Do you even know what we are talking about? The article specifically says how they managed to study drunk people without telling them to drink, and it's surprisingly easy: wait for people to get drunk on their own and then study the effects. Kinda surprised that I have to spell that out for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Almost like I brought it around full circle , after posts questioning the ethics of studying it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, you didn't. You just didn't understand what everyone else was talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago Ok permalink fedilink source parent
[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (5 children) You mean like in the OP? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (4 children) Yes, the circle is my point. You can’t argue that it’s always bad for people’s health so you can’t study it. Being known bad for people’s health just makes it more important to find a way permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) Did you read the article? Do you even know what we are talking about? The article specifically says how they managed to study drunk people without telling them to drink, and it's surprisingly easy: wait for people to get drunk on their own and then study the effects. Kinda surprised that I have to spell that out for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Almost like I brought it around full circle , after posts questioning the ethics of studying it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, you didn't. You just didn't understand what everyone else was talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago Ok permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (4 children) Yes, the circle is my point. You can’t argue that it’s always bad for people’s health so you can’t study it. Being known bad for people’s health just makes it more important to find a way permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) Did you read the article? Do you even know what we are talking about? The article specifically says how they managed to study drunk people without telling them to drink, and it's surprisingly easy: wait for people to get drunk on their own and then study the effects. Kinda surprised that I have to spell that out for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Almost like I brought it around full circle , after posts questioning the ethics of studying it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, you didn't. You just didn't understand what everyone else was talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago Ok permalink fedilink source parent
[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) Did you read the article? Do you even know what we are talking about? The article specifically says how they managed to study drunk people without telling them to drink, and it's surprisingly easy: wait for people to get drunk on their own and then study the effects. Kinda surprised that I have to spell that out for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Almost like I brought it around full circle , after posts questioning the ethics of studying it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, you didn't. You just didn't understand what everyone else was talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago Ok permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Almost like I brought it around full circle , after posts questioning the ethics of studying it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, you didn't. You just didn't understand what everyone else was talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago Ok permalink fedilink source parent
[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, you didn't. You just didn't understand what everyone else was talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago Ok permalink fedilink source parent